Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Annual return GSTR9

Sudhir Kumar

Sir any notification or circular which restrict the taxpayer to file annual return GSTR-9 after 03 years.

Please guide

Can Taxpayers File GSTR-9 After Three Years? New Amendment to Section 44 Clarifies for FY 2022-23 Onward. A discussion on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) forum addresses whether taxpayers can file the annual return GSTR-9 after three years. A participant cites an amendment to Section 44 of the Central GST Act, effective from October 1, 2023, which restricts filing beyond three years from the due date, with potential exceptions by government notification. Another participant questions the amendment's applicability, and it is clarified that it applies to returns due from FY 2022-23 onwards. The discussion references past instances where similar issues arose, emphasizing the importance of understanding the effective date of such amendments. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
KASTURI SETHI on Jul 26, 2024

Amendment of section 44. (inserted vide Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 1.10.23) This is the latest as on today.

144. Section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof, and after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:—

"(2) A registered person shall not be allowed to furnish an annual return under sub-section (1) for a financial year after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said annual return:

Provided that the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein, allow a registered person or a class of registered persons to furnish an annual return for a financial year under sub-section (1), even after the expiry of the said period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said annual return.".

Padmanathan KV on Jul 27, 2024

Ld. Kasthuri Ji,

Whether this amendment would apply to those Annual Return (GSTR-9) to be filed after 1-10-2023 i.e. FY 2022-23 onwards (For eg, the due date for FY 2022-23 was 31-12-2023 so, GSTR-9 for FY 2022-23 cannot be filed after 31-12-2026)

OR

Is it applicable to Annual return (GSTR-9) for any FY to be filed after 01-10-2023, if as on that date i.e. 01-10-2023, a period of 3 years have already expired? (For eg, GSTR-9 for FY 2018-19 has not been filed till date. The due date was 31-03-2020. As on 01-10-2023, 3 years has already expired.)

KASTURI SETHI on Jul 27, 2024

Sh.Padmanathan Kollemgode Ji,

First illustration  is legally correct.

Padmanathan KV on Jul 27, 2024

Thank you for your views. I agree with the same too. However, CGST Department has adopted latter view during audit in one of my cases.

KASTURI SETHI on Jul 27, 2024

Sh.Padmanathan Kollengode Ji,

Such like situation arose in the year 2008 in Service Tax matter. The issue was different but dispute regarding effective date was the same. The department implemented the notification retrospectively instead of prospectively and filed appeal against the Order-in-Original. Ultimately CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the department and CESTAT's Order was accepted by the department. Thereafter, decks were cleared for all on the same issue and that practice is still in force.

If any Audit Officer adopts your second illustration (latter), that officer is saving his skin and nothing else.

These are my personal views for education purpose only.

Ganeshan Kalyani on Jul 31, 2024

Thanks for clarification both the experts.

Sudhir Kumar on Aug 1, 2024

Thanks for valuable opinions 

+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues