Validity of Invoices Not Registered on IRP Within 30 Days

[VENKAT S]

In cases where e-invoices are not generated within the 30-day window and the IRP rejects them, Rule 48(5) renders such invoices invalid despite tax payment and reporting in GSTR-1. Should a procedural lapse override the substantive compliance? How are professionals handling such scenarios in practice, especially with respect to ITC eligibility and departmental response?

[Sadanand Bulbule]

In my experience, this time line is mandatory and non-negotiable as per GSTIN advisory. There is risk of non-eligibility of ITC to the recipient, besides risk of penalty under Section 122. Adherence to time discipline is beneficiary for the supplier and the recipient as well. Even the authorities have no option to validate such lapse.

Consult your tax advisor about the issue of credit/debit note for reconciliation, if feasible.

[KASTURI SETHI]

I support the views of Sh. Sadanand Bulbule, Sir. I have observed that Supreme Court and High Courts are very strict in this context.  Otherwise also delay signifies bad impression on all fora.

[Shilpi Jain]

From suppliers point of view - there could be a penalty for this.

From recipient point of view - ITC is at risk.

As you rightly mentioned it is only a procedural lapse. Actually, in cases where invoice is requierd to be issued within 30 days after service or before removal of goods, and invoice is issued later, there is only interest and general penalty applicable. ITC is not restricted in hands of recipient.

On this basis, in this scenario also, apart from general penalty no other consequence should apply.

But this relief may be given only in the Tribunal / Courts

AI Summary

E-invoices not registered on IRP within 30 days create penalty risks and ITC ineligibility under GST Rule 48(5) A discussion forum addressed the validity of e-invoices not registered on IRP within the mandatory 30-day window under GST Rule 48(5). The query questioned whether procedural non-compliance should override substantive compliance when tax is paid and reported in GSTR-1. One respondent emphasized the timeline is mandatory and non-negotiable, creating ITC ineligibility risks for recipients and penalty exposure under Section 122. Another supported this strict view, noting courts maintain stringent positions on compliance. A third respondent acknowledged penalty risks for suppliers and ITC risks for recipients, but argued that since late invoice issuance typically attracts only interest and general penalties without ITC restrictions, similar relief should apply here, though likely requiring tribunal or court intervention for resolution.