<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Input tax credit reconciliation: import and SEZ credits could not be denied solely on GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A mismatch.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101003</link>
    <description>Input tax credit mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, in relation to import and SEZ procurements, did not by itself establish excess availment where GSTR-2A for the relevant period did not capture such credits by design. The HC noted that the petitioner had disclosed the procurements in GSTR-3B and later in GSTR-9, and that import credit was supported by the Bill of Entry; the demand, interest and penalty on this ground were set aside. On the remaining issues, including corporate guarantee, cross-charges, promotion expenses, merchant export rate, export refund, reverse charge on import of services and medical-consultation credit, the adjudication was found unsustainable for failure to consider the governing provisions, circulars, notifications and submissions, so those findings were remanded for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 08:39:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 08:39:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Input tax credit reconciliation: import and SEZ credits could not be denied solely on GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A mismatch.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101003</link>
      <description>Input tax credit mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, in relation to import and SEZ procurements, did not by itself establish excess availment where GSTR-2A for the relevant period did not capture such credits by design. The HC noted that the petitioner had disclosed the procurements in GSTR-3B and later in GSTR-9, and that import credit was supported by the Bill of Entry; the demand, interest and penalty on this ground were set aside. On the remaining issues, including corporate guarantee, cross-charges, promotion expenses, merchant export rate, export refund, reverse charge on import of services and medical-consultation credit, the adjudication was found unsustainable for failure to consider the governing provisions, circulars, notifications and submissions, so those findings were remanded for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 08:39:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>