GST Calendar –Compliances for the month of January’2023
| Nature of Compliances | Due Date |
| GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source ‘TDS’) | February 10, 2023 |
| GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source ‘TCS’) | February 10, 2023 |
| GSTR-1 | February 11, 2023 |
| IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) | February 13, 2023 |
| GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor | February 13, 2023 |
| GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) | February 14, 2023 |
| GSTR-3B | February 20, 2023 |
| GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person) | February 20, 2023 |
| GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider) | February 20, 2023 |
| PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme) | February 25, 2023 |
Rectification of GSTR-1 for the period July’17-Mar’18
Background
The petitioner has wrongfully exhibited transaction under B2C instead of B2B while filing return in FORM GSTR-1 due to which the recipient was unable to avail Input Tax Credit (“ITC”).
The Petitioner has sought permission from the Revenue Department to rectify the GST Return filed for the period Sep’17 and Mar’18 so that the recipient can avail ITC benefit.
The Respondent rejected the request of the Petitioner on the grounds that the last date of filing of return was March 31’2019.
Issue
Whether the Petitioner can be allowed to make rectifications of errors in its FORM GSTR-1 after the due date.
Held
The Hon’ble Odisha High Court has held that by permitting the Petitioner to rectify the error in return, there will be no loss whatsoever caused to the Parties. It is not as if there would be any escapement from the tax. The issue is primarily about availing the ITC benefit which in any event has to be provided. On the contrary, if it is permitted, then the Petitioner would unnecessarily be prejudiced.
The Hon’ble High Court has permitted the Petitioner to rectify and resubmit the corrected FORM GSTR-1 for the aforementioned period Sep’2017 and March’2018 and submit manually to the authorities.
If notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A is not issued, Order not valid
Background
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an impugned order. The said impugned order was passed by the Respondent under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The Petitioner has contended that in terms of the provision of Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules (CGST Rules), before passing any order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Part A of FORM DRC-01A is required to be issued.
Whereas, in the present matter, the Respondent has not issued the notice in the stipulated manner, therefore, fair opportunity to respond was not granted to the Petitioner.
Issue
Whether the non-issuance of SCN to the Petitioner violates the fair opportunity to the respond.
Held
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under-
For initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provides for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under-
For initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provides for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.
Proceeding under section 101 of CGST Act, 2017 and Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 by M/s Portescap India Private Limited.
Background
The Appellant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing of customized motors in India (Mumbai).
The Appellant is an SEZ unit and engaged in exports of the manufactured goods outside India.
The appellant procures rental services from the entity engaged in the Special economic zone (SEZ) authority, situated at service.
Issue
Whether Appellant is required to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism on procurement of renting of immovable property service from the special economic developer or unit.
Order
The Hon’ble MAAAR has set aside the ruling passed by the MAAR, wherein, the Hon’ble MAAR has held that the application filed by the Appellant for obtaining Advance ruling in respect of the aforementioned issue is not maintainable in terms of Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Further, the Hon’ble MAAAR has held that the Maharashtra AAR should consider the subject matters on merit.
Accordingly the matter is remanded back to the Maharashtra AAR.