Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
╳
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:
From To
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: 121100
Like 0 Bookmark

Does Non-filing of GSTR3B invokes action u/s 79(1)(c)

Date 03 Sep 2026
Replies 5 Replies
Views 721 Views
DRC-13 recovery requires proper liability determination and procedure before a purchasing dealer faces recovery for supplier's unfiled return.
Recovery through DRC-13 from a purchasing dealer for a supplier's non-filing of GSTR-3B is questioned where eligible input tax credit exists, prescribed pre-recovery procedure was not followed, or no liability-determining order was passed. The defaulting taxpayer should file GSTR-3B and discharge the correctly computed net tax liability with applicable interest. Once that liability is discharged, the purchasing dealer should not make a duplicate payment, and any double recovery may require refund to the appropriate person. (AI Summary)

M/S Mahavir has Filed GSTR-1 for Qt Ending June 2026 with outward tax liability of 34220+34220 (CGST + SGST) After deducting available ITC the Tax Payable comes to Rs.16829+16829. Due to insufficient funds dealer has not paid the Challan and filed GSTR-3B till today. Now the Officer has issued DRC 13 to our purchasing dealer M/s Shristi for Rs 34220+34220. Does this action of the officer is correct? There are no previous Returns pending. What recourse is open to M/S Mahavir? If M/S Mahavir pays the challan and Files GSTR-3B now, does M/S Shristi is still liable to pay?

5 answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 4, 2026
1.

The officer's gross demand via DRC-13 is procedurally invalid without DRC-01D intimation.

Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 4, 2026
2.

I would not accept the proposition that the officer can simply recover Rs. 68,440 from Shristi without qualification. The Department has a statutory recovery route against Mahavir because the GSTR-1 liability was declared and GSTR-3B was not filed. However, the quantum and the manner of invoking DRC-13 are both open to challenge, particularly if Rs. 34,782 ITC is validly available and the prescribed pre-recovery procedure was bypassed.

Mahavir should immediately file the June 2026 GSTR-3B, discharge the correctly computed net tax + interest, and simultaneously seek written withdrawal of the DRC-13 issued to Shristi. Shristi should not make a duplicate payment once Mahavir's liability is discharged, but it should retain evidence of the withdrawal/closure because section 79 places consequences on a third person who pays the defaulter after receiving a garnishee notice.

Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 5, 2026
3.

The query does not explain the complete facts of the case. Without knowing the facts, the officer's actions cannot be blamed. It is stated that after ITC is deducted, the remaining tax liability is to be recovered. However, it is not stated whether the available ITC was determined to be eligible ITC and allowed by passing an order. Whether the taxpayer has replied to the notices appropriately or not. In case an order was passed for the entire tax liability, the recovery action taken by the Officer is correct. Without passing an order, initiation of recovery action is incorrect. In case the tax liability is discharged by filing GSTR-3B, M/s Shristi is not liable to discharge. In case there is a double recovery, it is refundable either to M/s Srishti or to Mahavir, as the case may be.

Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 6, 2026
4.

Have a look at rule 37A. This is not right action by officer and is taken premature. There has also been a HC decision which states that before 9 & 9C is filed demand should not be raised.

Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 8, 2026
5.

The first defaulter is the assessee who did not file GSTR-3B return. This is a serious offence.

Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues