Input tax credit availment and goods movement scrutiny: s.74 notice lacked fraud/suppression claims, so demand orders quashed

Input tax credit availment and goods movement scrutiny: s.74 notice lacked fraud/suppression claims, so demand orders quashedCase-LawsGSTProceedings initiated under s.74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed t

Input tax credit availment and goods movement scrutiny: s.74 notice lacked fraud/suppression claims, so demand orders quashed
Case-Laws
GST
Proceedings initiated under s.74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed to allege the statutory preconditions of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts for wrongful or excess availment/utilisation of input tax credit; absent these foundational averments, the authority could not assume s.74 ju

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Delhi HC asks Customs to respond to IndiGo’s plea seeking refund of Rs 900 cr duty

Delhi HC asks Customs to respond to IndiGo’s plea seeking refund of Rs 900 cr dutyGSTDated:- 19-12-2025PTINew Delhi, Dec 19 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from the Customs department on a plea by InterGlobe Aviation, which operates

Delhi HC asks Customs to respond to IndiGo’s plea seeking refund of Rs 900 cr duty
GST
Dated:- 19-12-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Dec 19 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from the Customs department on a plea by InterGlobe Aviation, which operates the IndiGo airline, seeking a refund of more than Rs 900 crore paid as Customs duty on aircraft engines and parts re-imported into India after overseas repairs.
A bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar issued the notice to the deputy commissioner (refund), office of the principal commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), and asked the authorities to file a counter affidavit within two weeks.
The court listed the matter for next hearing on April 8, 2

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

charge basis.
However, the Customs authorities insisted on levying duty again by treating the same transaction as import of goods, the counsel claimed.
The company claimed the issue was settled earlier by the Customs tribunal, which held that Customs duty could not be levied again on re-imports following repairs.
It said the exemption notification was later amended but the tribunal ruled that the amendment would apply only prospectively.
The company said it paid the duty under protest for more than 4,000 bills of entry, amounting to more than Rs 900 crore.
When InterGlobe later filed refund claims, the Customs authorities refused them on the ground that the airline must first seek reassessment of each bill of entry. PTI SKV ARI
New

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Fraudulent ITC claim demand and show-cause notice service dispute, consolidated multi-year notice upheld; writ dismissed with costs.

Fraudulent ITC claim demand and show-cause notice service dispute, consolidated multi-year notice upheld; writ dismissed with costs.Case-LawsGSTChallenge to a demand order for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC was rejected as the noticee failed to reply

Fraudulent ITC claim demand and show-cause notice service dispute, consolidated multi-year notice upheld; writ dismissed with costs.
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to a demand order for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC was rejected as the noticee failed to reply to the show cause notice despite being aware of the investigation, and personal hearing intimations sent to the registered email were held duly served, rendering the non-service plea false. Issuance of a consolidated show cause noti

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Composite GST show-cause notice clubbing multiple financial years u/s73/s.74 held invalid; FY 2019-20 to 2023-24 notice quashed.

Composite GST show-cause notice clubbing multiple financial years u/s73/s.74 held invalid; FY 2019-20 to 2023-24 notice quashed.Case-LawsGSTClubbing multiple tax periods/financial years in a single composite show-cause notice under s.73/s.74 of the CGST/K

Composite GST show-cause notice clubbing multiple financial years u/s73/s.74 held invalid; FY 2019-20 to 2023-24 notice quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
Clubbing multiple tax periods/financial years in a single composite show-cause notice under s.73/s.74 of the CGST/KGST Act was held impermissible because the statutory scheme treats each financial year as an independent assessment unit with separate returns, reconciliation, evaluation of transactions/ITC, and year-specific limitation; the Act doe

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST delayed return filing and DRC-01 reply: if confirmed tax already paid, no extra pre-deposit; remand ordered.

GST delayed return filing and DRC-01 reply: if confirmed tax already paid, no extra pre-deposit; remand ordered.Case-LawsGSTIn a challenge concerning GST proceedings for delayed return filing, the court noted that no late fee under s.47 had been imposed,

GST delayed return filing and DRC-01 reply: if confirmed tax already paid, no extra pre-deposit; remand ordered.
Case-Laws
GST
In a challenge concerning GST proceedings for delayed return filing, the court noted that no late fee under s.47 had been imposed, and held that if the confirmed tax demand had already been recovered and paid, no further pre-deposit would be required for the de novo proceedings arising from the impugned order dated 24.08.2024, and the assessee must file a reply

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit claims for May 2018-March 2019 returns: Section 16(5) overrides Section 16(4) time bar, relief granted. (5)

Input tax credit claims for May 2018-March 2019 returns: Section 16(5) overrides Section 16(4) time bar, relief granted. (5)Case-LawsGSTInput tax credit was denied on the ground that returns for May 2018-March 2019 were not filed within the time limit und

Input tax credit claims for May 2018-March 2019 returns: Section 16(5) overrides Section 16(4) time bar, relief granted. (5)
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit was denied on the ground that returns for May 2018-March 2019 were not filed within the time limit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the subsequently introduced Section 16(5) creates an overriding entitlement, since it begins with a non obstante clause and imposes only the condition that the relevant returns be

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Changes in employment guarantee scheme will severely impact states: Kerala FM

Changes in employment guarantee scheme will severely impact states: Kerala FMGSTDated:- 18-12-2025PTIKochi, Dec 18 (PTI) Kerala Finance Minister K N Balagopal on Thursday said changes brought to the employment guarantee scheme would severely impact states

Changes in employment guarantee scheme will severely impact states: Kerala FM
GST
Dated:- 18-12-2025
PTI
Kochi, Dec 18 (PTI) Kerala Finance Minister K N Balagopal on Thursday said changes brought to the employment guarantee scheme would severely impact states.
Speaking to reporters here in the wake of the G RAM G Bill introduced by the Centre in Parliament to replace the MGNREGA scheme, Balagopal said converting the employment guarantee scheme to a 60:40 funding ratio would adversely affect states and limit employment generation under the scheme.
“The union government is backtracking from its responsibilities under the Centre–state relationship. Last year, Rs 80,000 crore was earmarked for states. The reasonable share due to

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

alone would suffer a financial loss of Rs 8,000 crore to Rs 10,000 crore annually due to tax reforms.
“Recent figures show that the study was right,” he said.
“After the new rate, for the first time, states in India have witnessed negative growth. Kerala’s situation is relatively better, but the growth rate in the state will also decline,” he said.
He said automobile sales rose by 65 per cent in several states following the rate revision during the festive season, but questioned the sustainability of such consumption.
“Will we buy a car every month? Nobody buys a car even every year,” he said.
Balagopal said although the rate revision was intended to boost consumption, prices of goods have not come down, as per studies.
“In the end

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ment guarantee scheme enhanced incomes in rural areas, but fund cuts would reduce state revenues by at least Rs 2,000 crore per year, he said, adding that earlier 90 per cent of the scheme was funded by the Centre, but that has now changed.
In Kerala alone, 9.07 crore employment days were generated last year, involving 13.72 lakh families, while around 22 lakh people have enrolled under the scheme, he said.
Balagopal said the recent developments would put the Indian economy and the lives of common people across the country under stress.
“It will have far-reaching consequences, pushing both states and the Centre into trouble,” he said.
Lok Sabha on Thursday passed a bill to replace the 20-year-old scheme MGNREGA amid tearing of papers by

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Consolidated FAQs on GSTR -9/9C for FY 2024-25

Consolidated FAQs on GSTR -9/9C for FY 2024-25GSTDated:- 18-12-2025GSTN has published series of FAQ on 16th Oct, 2025 and 4th Dec, 2025 for assisting the taxpayer in filing of Annual Return i.e., GSTR-9/9C. For convenience, the taxpayer may access Consoli

Consolidated FAQs on GSTR -9/9C for FY 2024-25
GST
Dated:- 18-12-2025

GSTN has published series of FAQ on 16th Oct, 2025 and 4th Dec, 2025 for assisting the taxpayer in filing of Annual Return i.e., GSTR-9/9C. For convenience, the taxpayer may access Consolidated FAQs
 
=============
Document 1
GIN
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
S.No.QueryGSTN Reply
1When my GSTR 9/9C for FY 2024-25 will be enabled?Once all the due returns in Form GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B for the FY 2024-25 is filed, GSTR 9/9C for FY 2024-25 will be enabled in the system automatically.
2If any GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B is pending for the FY 2024-25 then will my GSTR 9 is enabled?No GSTR 9 will not be enabled where any GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B is pending for FY 2024-25. All the relevant cells of Table 4,5,6,8 and 9 of GSTR 9 will be auto populated based on the statement / return filed by you i.e. GSTR 1/1A/IFF or GSTR 2B or GSTR 3B.
3What is

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

auto population of value in Table 4/5 of GSTR 9?Yes, from FY 2024-25 the supplies added / amended through GSTR 1A will also be considered along with GSTR 1 and IFF for the purpose of auto population in Table 4, 5 of GSTR 9.
6What is table 6A1 and which amount is required to be reported?Table 6A1 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 capture the ITC of preceding FY (2023-24) claimed by the recipient in the current FY (2024-25) till the specified time period and it is also included in Table 6A of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25.
However, any ITC pertaining to FY 2023-24 or any other preceding financial years, which has been reclaimed during current FY (2024-25) on account of rule 37 / 37A will not be reported in Table 6A1 of GSTR 9.
Therefore, the amount calculated in Table 6A2 (6A minus 6A1) is the ITC pertaining to current FY (2024-25) which need to be bifurcated between 6B to 6H. As the ITC of preceding FY (2023-24) has been excluded through Table 6A1 therefore it will not create the difference in Table 6J

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

has been reclaimed in March 2025 as payment
has been made on 4th March 2025. The reporting will be in the GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 as under –
1. Original claim in Table 6B of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 2. Reversal of same in Table 7A of GSTR 9 for FY 2024- 25 3. Reclaim in Table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
Example 2 – Mr A has claimed Rs 100 (IGST) in the month of April 2024 and reversed the same in April 2024 due to non- receipt of goods as per Circular No. 170/02/2022-GST 6th July 2022. The same has been reclaimed in May 2024 as goods has been received on 4th May 2024. The reporting will be in the GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 as under – 1. Original claim in Table 6B of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 2. Reversal of same in Table 7H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024- 25 3. Reclaim in Table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
8How the value of ITC will be reported if ITC pertaining to FY 2023- 24 has been claimed, reversed in FY 2023- 24 and reclaimed in the FY 2024-25?ITC pertaining to preceding FY (2023-24) which has been clai

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

S TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
(due to rule 37/37A) in the current FY (2024-25) then such reclaimed ITC should not be reported in Table 6A1 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25. This needs to be reported in Table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25.
9How the value of ITC will be reported if ITC pertaining to FY 2024- 25 has been claimed, reversed in FY 2024- 25 and reclaimed in the FY 2025-26?Table 6A of GSTR 9, is auto populated from Table 4A (1 to 5) of GSTR 3B for entire FY from April 2024 to March 2025. As ITC was claimed and reversed in the FY 2024-25 itself then it will be reported in table 6B and reversal in Table 7 of GSTR 9. In such cases these two events should be reported as below –
· claim should be reported in Table 6B, . reversal should be reported in Table 7 (Table 7A to 7H, as the case may be).
For the reclaim the procedure will be based on whether reclaim is on account of rule 37/37A or reason otherwise, as below –
A. If the I

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Reversal of same shall be reported in Table 7H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
3. Shall not report reclaim amount in Table 8C of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
4. Reclaim shall be reported in table 13 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
5. Reclaim shall be reported in table 6A1 in next FY 2025- 26 (in GSTR 9 of next Year).
Example 2 – If any ITC of current FY 2024-25 was claimed and reversed in the FY 2024-25 but reclaimed (due to rule 37/37A) in the next FY 2025-26 then such ITC will be reported in GSTR 9 as under –
1. Original claim shall be reported in Table 6B of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
Page 3 of 13
GIN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
2. Reversal of same shall be reported in Table 7A (rule 37) or 7A1 (rule 37A) of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 3. Reclaim shall not to be reported in table 8C and 13 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 C. Reclaim shall be reported in table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2025-26 (in GSTR 9 of next Year).
10Whether there are any chan

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rmal charge and amended to reverse charge then it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2B and B2BA sections of excel sheet) but not appear in Table 8A online 3. Outward supplies (where recipient and supplier belongs to different states) reported as IGST and subsequently PoS is amended as Supplier state and hence CGST and SGST was charged. This record is ineligible for ITC due to PoS Rule, and it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2B as ITC eligibility Yes and B2BA as ITC eligibility No) but not appear in Table 8A online 4. Outward supplies amended from FY 2024-25 to FY 2025-26 then it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2B sections of excel sheet) but not appear in Table 8A online 5. Outward supplies amended from FY 2025-26 to FY 2024-25 then it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2BA sections of excel sheet) and will appear in Table 8A online
It may be noted that 8A online is correctly populated whereas there are some additional records may present in Table 8A excel on account of above-mentioned poin

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

versa, if any invoice pertains to FY 25-26 but later on Invoice date was preponed to FY 24-25 the record will be auto populated in table 8A excel (under B2BA section) and Online Table 8A of GSTR 9 for FY 2024- 25.
Example 2 – Original Invoice was added in GSTR 1 for January 2025 with Rs 100 (IGST) and subsequently supplier has amended the invoice to Rs 120 (IGST) in Feb 2025. After amending the value, Table 8A online will be populated with Rs 120(IGST). However, the Table 8A excel will have this record in B2B sections of excel sheet as Rs 100 (IGST) and B2BA sections of excel sheet as Rs 120 (IGST).
Example 3 – Mr A is registered in Maharashtra has issued invoice with IGST to Mr B (registered in Delhi) in the GSTR 1 for January 2025. As this was eligible record for FY 2024-25 hence it will appear in the table 8A (Excel and Online) of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25. Now supplier has amended the place of supply as Maharashtra in the GSTR 1 of Feb 2025 and therefore the CGST and SGST is levied on

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

3B for corresponding tax period by the recipient as ITC to be claimed by the recipient in his GSTR 3B. Example- If my supplier reported the Invoices for FY 2024- 25 in the GSTR 1 of next FY (between April 2025 to October 2025) i.e. till the specified time period. Then, it is the part of GSTR 2B of recipient as eligible ITC. Now, this invoice will be visible to taxpayer in table 8A of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 once the taxpayer files the GSTR 3B for the corresponding tax period.
15What is Table 8C of
GSTR 9?Table 8C contain data of ITC of current FY which is availed in next
FY within the specified time period. This table shall not include any ITC which was claimed (reported in table 4A of GSTR 3B) and reversed (Reported in 4B of GSTR 3B) in the current FY and reclaimed in next FY till the specified time period. Hence the Table 8C only contain the missed ITC of current FY (2024-25) which is claimed in GSTR 3B of next FY till the specified time period.
16Whether table 8C will have the ITC wh

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

8C contain data of ITC of current FY which is availed in next
FY within the specified time period. This table shall not include any ITC which was claimed (reported in table 4A of GSTR 3B) and reversed (Reported in 4B of GSTR 3B) in the current FY and reclaimed in next FY till the specified time period. Hence the Table 8C only contain the missed ITC of current FY (2024-25) which is claimed in GSTR 3B of next FY till the specified time period.
Page 6 of 13
GIN
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
17In what cases, ITC shall be reported in Table 8C of GSTR 9?Amount will be reported in table 8C only when 1. The ITC pertaining to the FY 2024-25 which is part of GSTR 2B and auto populated in Table 8A of GSTR 9 but which has not been claimed by the recipient during the FY 2024-25 and hence he is availing the corresponding ITC first time in table 4A5 of GSTR 3B of next FY (2025-26) till the specified time period. 2. The

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

aimed the ITC in the GSTR 3B for April 2025 (In table 4A5 of GSTR 3B). This ITC is auto populated in Table 8A of GSTR 9 of FY 2024-25 and which has been claimed first time in next year till the specified time period so it will be reported in the Table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR 9 of FY 2024-25
18Will the Label Changes for Table 8B and delinking of table 6H from Table 8B in the auto population create any difference in Table 8D?From FY 2024-25 Table 8B will auto populate based on amount reported in Table 6B only. Amount reported in the Table 6H will not be part of Table 8B. ITC which is reclaimed by the recipient, will not appearing in GSTR 2B again and hence it will not be auto populated in Table 8A. As, the ITC reclaimed is also not required to be reported in the Table 8C. Therefore, delinking of Table 6H with 8B will mitigate the possibility of causing difference in Table 8D of GSTR 9.
19Goods have been imported in FY 24-25 however the ITC has been taken in FY 2025- 26 how this will be r

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

x payable column of Table 9. Further tax payable column of Table 9 of GSTR 9 is kept editable and therefore taxpayer may change the value, if required.
21Whether label change to Table 12 and table 13 does have any change in the reporting?Change in the Label of Table 12 and table 13 does not make any difference in the reporting compared to any preceding financial years. Table 12 captures the ITC of the financial year (2024-25) reversed in the next financial year. Table 13 captures the ITC of the financial year (2024-25) availed in the next financial year.
22Will there be any additional facility for filing the HSN details in Table 17 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25To facilitate the taxpayer, additional excel sheet named as `DOWNLOAD TABLE 12 of GSTR 1/1A HSN DETAILS' is provided having the consolidated details of Tabel 12 of GSTR 1 and additional sheet have also been provided in the same excel sheet having the details of HSN in the format of Table 17 of GSTR 9. This will facilitate the taxpayer

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ure such late fee payable under Section 47(2).
The late fee shall be leviable for the period starting from the due date of furnishing the annual return till the date of filing of GSTR 9 for annual return.
The late fee for GSTR 9C will be calculated from date of filing of GSTR 9 or due date of filing of Annual return, whichever is later till the filling of GSTR-9C.
These late fees will be auto calculated by the system based on the date filing of GSTR 9 and 9C.
Example 1 – If GSTR 9 is furnished on 25th December 2025 (due date 31st December 2025) and GSTR 9C is furnished on 7th January 2026. Then no late fees is levied for GSTR 9 as it is furnished within due date. However late fees for 7 days (delay in furnishing of GSTR 9C) is auto populated in GSTR 9C.
Example 2 – If GSTR 9 is furnished on 5th January 2026 (due date 31st December 2025) and GSTR 9C is furnished on 7th January 2026. Then total late fees leviable is for 7 days which will be auto populated by the system as For 5 days at t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

interest (if any). Relevant extract of the said press release – g) Reverse charge in respect of Financial Year 2017-18 paid during Financial Year 2018-19: Many taxpayers have requested for clarification on the appropriate column or table in which tax which was to be paid on reverse charge basis for the FY 2017-18 but was paid during FY 2018-19. It may be noted that since the payment was made during FY 2018-19, the input
Page 9 of 13
GIN
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
tax credit on such payment of tax would have been availed in FY 2018-19 only. Therefore, such details will not be declared in the annual return for the FY 2017-18 and will be declared in the annual return for FY 2018-19. If there are any variations in the calculation of turnover on account of this adjustment, the same may be reported with reasons in the reconciliation statement (FORM GSTR-9C).
27Ineligible ITC of 23-24, availed in FY 24-25 (Tab

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

is FY, this may create a mismatch. However, in case of any differences in Table 12F of GSTR 9C, taxpayers may provide the reason for un-reconciled differences in ITC in Table 13 of GSTR 9C.
29Table 7J of GSTR 9 does not consider 6A1 and therefore the amount in Table 7] does not match with the Table 4C of GSTR 3B of FY 2024-25,Table 4C of GSTR 3B may contain the ITC of FY 2023-24 claimed or reversed in FY 2024-25. However, the Table 7] of GSTR 9 shows the net ITC pertaining to the current FY only (2024-25). Therefore, there it may create differences between Table 4C of GSTR 3B and Table 7J of GSTR 9, in cases where ITC of preceding FY (2023-24) was reported in GSTR 3B of current FY (i.e. 2024-25).
30Can you guide whether ITC reversed during 24-25 pertaining 23-24, how to disclose the same in GSTR-9? whether it is to be reduced from Table 6A1 of GSTR-9 or table 7 or should not beITC pertaining to 2023-24 which has been reversed in GSTR 3B of 2024-25 then such reversal will not be reporte

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ial Statement depends upon methodology adopted by taxpayer. Accordingly, the value in Table 12A to 12C of GSTR 9C may be reported as per the accounting methodology adopted by taxpayer. However, if in case of any differences in Table 12F of GSTR 9C, taxpayer may provide the reason for un-reconciled differences in ITC in Table 13 of GSTR 9C.
32Where is non-GST purchase reported in GSTR 9?As there is no specified table in the notified Form GSTR 9, for reporting the Non-GST Purchase hence not required to be reported in the GSTR 9.
33Whether Table 4G1 of GSTR 9 to be reported by e commerce operator only?Table 4G1 of GSTR 9 to be reported by e commerce operator liable to pay the Tax under section 9(5) of CGST Act.
Page 11 of 13
GIN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
Example –
ParticularExample 1Example 2Example 3
Claim – Reversal and
reclaim all three are in same FY 24-25) Assume Amount of ITC is Rs 120Claim and Reve

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ancial year =(A-A1)2401200120120
Table 6B Inward supplies (other than imports and inward supplies liable to reverse charge but includes services received from SEZs)120120120
Table 6H Amount of ITC reclaimed under the provisions of the Act120120
Table 6I Sub total (B to H above)2401200120120
Table 6J Difference (I – A2 above)00000
Claim – Reversal and
reclaim all three are in same FY 24-25) Assume Amount of ITC is Rs 120
Claim and Reversal in
FY 24-25; Reclaim in FY 25-26 (Reason other than Rule 37/37A for e.g. Circular No. 170/02/2022-GST 6th July 2022)
9
GSTR forFY
FY 2025- 26*
2024-
GSTR 9
25
forGSTR 9
for FY 2025- 26*
NIL [as the ITC pertain to
current FY only]
Page 12 of 13
GIN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (A Government Enterprise)
Consolidated FAQ on GSTR 9/9C for the FY 2024-25
Table 7A / 7A1 7A – As per Rule 37 / 7A1 – As
per Rule 37A(Report in applicable
120 rows from 7A to 7H as120
Table 7H Other reversalper the reason of
reversal)120
Table 8A ITC as per GS

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Section 70 summons for inquiry and document production upheld; challenge rejected as premature, not starting proceedings

GST Section 70 summons for inquiry and document production upheld; challenge rejected as premature, not starting proceedingsCase-LawsGSTSummons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act are a statutory tool for inquiry to secure attendance, evidence, and pr

GST Section 70 summons for inquiry and document production upheld; challenge rejected as premature, not starting proceedings
Case-Laws
GST
Summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act are a statutory tool for inquiry to secure attendance, evidence, and production of documents, and such inquiry is deemed a judicial proceeding under Section 70(2) read with Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Since a summons under Section 70 is primarily for information-gathering and affording an opportuni

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Alleged GST input tax credit fraud via goods-less invoices and fake entities; bail granted, citing Article 21 and “reasons to believe”.

Alleged GST input tax credit fraud via goods-less invoices and fake entities; bail granted, citing Article 21 and “reasons to believe”.Case-LawsGSTBail was sought in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment of GST input tax credit through goods-less in

Alleged GST input tax credit fraud via goods-less invoices and fake entities; bail granted, citing Article 21 and “reasons to believe”.
Case-Laws
GST
Bail was sought in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment of GST input tax credit through goods-less invoices and fake entities. The court held that denial of bail cannot rest solely on the gravity of the alleged economic offence; pre-trial incarceration must be justified by specific risks such as tampering with evidence, influencing

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Fake GST input tax credit claims without moving goods: arrest lacked written grounds; custody review ends in bail

Fake GST input tax credit claims without moving goods: arrest lacked written grounds; custody review ends in bailCase-LawsGSTIn a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment of ITC without actual movement of goods, the court assessed whether continued custo

Fake GST input tax credit claims without moving goods: arrest lacked written grounds; custody review ends in bail
Case-Laws
GST
In a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment of ITC without actual movement of goods, the court assessed whether continued custody was justified in light of safeguards governing GST arrest and settled bail principles. Relying on binding precedent, it held that arrest must rest on recorded “reasons to believe” supported by material satisfying statutory conditi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Pre-resolution GST demands after insolvency resolution plan approval u/s 31 disallowed; new management not liable, orders quashed

Pre-resolution GST demands after insolvency resolution plan approval u/s 31 disallowed; new management not liable, orders quashedCase-LawsGSTFresh GST demands for periods prior to approval of an IBC resolution plan were held impermissible because, upon ap

Pre-resolution GST demands after insolvency resolution plan approval u/s 31 disallowed; new management not liable, orders quashed
Case-Laws
GST
Fresh GST demands for periods prior to approval of an IBC resolution plan were held impermissible because, upon approval under Section 31, all dues not forming part of the resolution plan-including statutory dues-stand extinguished and no proceedings for such past dues can continue. Since the tax department had participated in the insolvency pro

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST s.73 tax demand ignoring DRC-06 reply to show-cause notice set aside; fresh decision after 50% deposit

GST s.73 tax demand ignoring DRC-06 reply to show-cause notice set aside; fresh decision after 50% depositCase-LawsGSTThe dominant issue was whether the tax demand order under s.73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could stand when the taxpayer’s reply in Form DRC-0

GST s.73 tax demand ignoring DRC-06 reply to show-cause notice set aside; fresh decision after 50% deposit
Case-Laws
GST
The dominant issue was whether the tax demand order under s.73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could stand when the taxpayer's reply in Form DRC-06 to the show cause notice was not considered, amounting to breach of principles of natural justice. On that basis, the impugned order confirming SGST/CGST demand with interest and penalty was set aside and the matter was remitted fo

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation amid delayed revocation and conflicting Section 63 assessments based on GSTR-2A; cancellation orders set aside

GST registration cancellation amid delayed revocation and conflicting Section 63 assessments based on GSTR-2A; cancellation orders set asideCase-LawsGSTCancellation of GST registration was held vitiated for breach of natural justice where the taxpayer’s r

GST registration cancellation amid delayed revocation and conflicting Section 63 assessments based on GSTR-2A; cancellation orders set aside
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration was held vitiated for breach of natural justice where the taxpayer's revocation application remained undecided beyond the statutory time and the department failed to disclose its status, undermining the cancellation process; consequently, the show-cause notice, cancellation order, and appellate dismiss

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit reconciliation mismatch between GSTR-3B and disclosures u/s 16(4); 25% deposit ordered, attachment lifted.

Input tax credit reconciliation mismatch between GSTR-3B and disclosures u/s 16(4); 25% deposit ordered, attachment lifted.Case-LawsGSTExcess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the tax

Input tax credit reconciliation mismatch between GSTR-3B and disclosures u/s 16(4); 25% deposit ordered, attachment lifted.
Case-Laws
GST
Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to depo

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Guarantees, welfare schemes, GST rate rationalisation constrained K'taka's fiscal position: Govt

Guarantees, welfare schemes, GST rate rationalisation constrained K’taka’s fiscal position: GovtGSTDated:- 17-12-2025PTIBelagavi (Karnataka), Dec 17 (PTI) The Karnataka government on Wednesday said that the five guarantees and other welfare schemes and GS

Guarantees, welfare schemes, GST rate rationalisation constrained K'taka's fiscal position: Govt
GST
Dated:- 17-12-2025
PTI
Belagavi (Karnataka), Dec 17 (PTI) The Karnataka government on Wednesday said that the five guarantees and other welfare schemes and GST rate rationalisation have constrained its fiscal position.
The state's economy is expected to remain on a growth trajectory this fiscal, supported by adequate rainfall, the government said in its report titled 'Mid-Year Review of State Finances', presented in the Assembly.
The five guarantee schemes are ‘Gruha Jyothi’ offering 200 units of electricity free to every household, ‘Gruha Lakshmi’ scheme promising Rs 2,000 to every woman head of a family and ‘Anna Bh

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

al year,” it underlined.
To mitigate these challenges, the state said it has undertaken concerted efforts to mobilise its own tax revenues to increase the revenue collections.
“Additionally, expenditure rationalisation initiatives are being pursued to contain non-essential spending and protect allocations for priority development sectors, to narrow the revenue deficit in the remaining part of the year,” the government said.
The report said the state's economy is expected to remain on a growth trajectory this fiscal, supported by adequate rainfall.
The government projected the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at Rs 30,91,111 crore for 2025-26, citing the Ministry of Finance.
“State economy is expected to continue its growth trajector

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST show-cause notice and DRC-07 portal tax-demand summary upheld; signer competent, jurisdiction objection rejected, appeal allowed by 31-01-2026

GST show-cause notice and DRC-07 portal tax-demand summary upheld; signer competent, jurisdiction objection rejected, appeal allowed by 31-01-2026Case-LawsGSTChallenge to the validity of the SCN on the ground that it was issued by an incompetent officer w

GST show-cause notice and DRC-07 portal tax-demand summary upheld; signer competent, jurisdiction objection rejected, appeal allowed by 31-01-2026
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to the validity of the SCN on the ground that it was issued by an incompetent officer was rejected because, though the portal reflected the Superintendent, the SCN was actually signed by the competent Joint Director; consequently, the SCN was not invalidated. Objection to appellate forum/jurisdiction was rejected as th

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Show-cause notice uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab led to ex parte order; adjudication set aside, remanded for rehearing

Show-cause notice uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab led to ex parte order; adjudication set aside, remanded for rehearingCase-LawsGSTEx parte adjudication was assailed on the ground that the show cause notice and order were uploaded only under an “A

Show-cause notice uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab led to ex parte order; adjudication set aside, remanded for rehearing
Case-Laws
GST
Ex parte adjudication was assailed on the ground that the show cause notice and order were uploaded only under an “Additional Notices” tab and were not effectively served, resulting in denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice. Applying the approach adopted in a comparable case, the adjudication was held to warran

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Tax refund withheld despite appellate approval; authorities told to release sanctioned refund within 10 days absent stay order.

Tax refund withheld despite appellate approval; authorities told to release sanctioned refund within 10 days absent stay order.Case-LawsGSTTax authorities withheld a refund despite an appellate order allowing it, citing that further appeals were contempla

Tax refund withheld despite appellate approval; authorities told to release sanctioned refund within 10 days absent stay order.
Case-Laws
GST
Tax authorities withheld a refund despite an appellate order allowing it, citing that further appeals were contemplated. Applying the rule that administrative authorities must implement appellate orders unless stayed or set aside, the court held that mere intention to appeal cannot justify non-compliance, as such withholding undermines the rule of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Inverted duty structure GST refund claims after 13.07.2022: Circular 181 para 2(2) invalid; rejection quashed, remand ordered. (3)

Inverted duty structure GST refund claims after 13.07.2022: Circular 181 para 2(2) invalid; rejection quashed, remand ordered. (3)Case-LawsGSTRefund under the inverted duty structure was denied by applying paragraph 2(2) of a circular restricting eligibil

Inverted duty structure GST refund claims after 13.07.2022: Circular 181 para 2(2) invalid; rejection quashed, remand ordered. (3)
Case-Laws
GST
Refund under the inverted duty structure was denied by applying paragraph 2(2) of a circular restricting eligibility for refund applications filed after 13.07.2022. Relying on a coordinate bench ruling, the court held that paragraph 2(2) of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST was ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST/GGST Act and violative of Article

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) makes pending export refund show-cause notices and orders lapse, petition disposed

Omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) makes pending export refund show-cause notices and orders lapse, petition disposedCase-LawsGSTOn repeal/omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) by Notification dated 08 October 2024, and in the absence of any savi

Omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) makes pending export refund show-cause notices and orders lapse, petition disposed
Case-Laws
GST
On repeal/omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) by Notification dated 08 October 2024, and in the absence of any saving clause or applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, pending proceedings founded on the omitted provisions are not preserved; undisposed show cause notices, and orders (whether passed after 08 October 2024 or passed ea

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Greater FDI in insurance to promote competition, increase penetration: FM

Greater FDI in insurance to promote competition, increase penetration: FMGSTDated:- 16-12-2025PTINew Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Tuesday said that raising the FDI limit to 100 per cent in the insurance sector will help attra

Greater FDI in insurance to promote competition, increase penetration: FM
GST
Dated:- 16-12-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Tuesday said that raising the FDI limit to 100 per cent in the insurance sector will help attract more capital, improve competition and increase insurance penetration by making policies more affordable.
Replying to the debate on the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the proposed removal of the upper cap on FDI in the insurance sector would ensure capital flow in the sector.
This will ensure that the country benefits from better technology and world-class risk assessment models, as well as the best insurance products available anywhere in the world, she said, adding that FDI will attract more players and make insurance policies more affordable.
“Monopoly doesn't give us that advantage, and therefore, the more the compe

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

o 100 per cent.
It also paves the way for the merger of a non-insurance company with an insurance firm.
The finance minister said that the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi raised the FDI limit for insurance companies from 26 per cent to 49 per cent in 2015 and from 49 per cent to 74 per cent in 2021 to attract global capital and technical know-how.
Similarly, the FDI limit for insurance intermediaries was raised to 100 per cent in 2019 to enable them to provide better advisory services to citizens.
To make insurance more affordable, Sitharaman said the 56th GST Council Meeting held in September unanimously agreed to remove GST on individual life and health insurance premiums.
There is now a nil GST rate, which was earlier 18 per cent on all individual life insurance policies and individual health insurance policies and this is a significant tax relief that directly reduces the cost of premiums for policyholders, encouraging more people to insure themselves and t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

corporate structure.
In addition, the bill seeks to provide greater autonomy to Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).
“We are providing autonomy to LIC to open zonal offices and aligning compliance for its foreign offices with the laws and regulations which prevail in the respective jurisdictions,” she said.
The Bill also proposed rationalising the penalties imposed by the regulator and increasing the penalty limit to Rs 10 crore.
“Earlier, the fine of one crore, which we are now proposing to increase to Rs 10 crore, was only applicable to the insurance companies and not for the intermediaries. Now we are bringing both on board, and both will be at Rs 10 crore penalty, so that they will be some deterrent from compliance oversights as a result of which many of the policyholders suffer,” she said.
With regard to the term of office of the Chairperson and other whole-time members, the Bill provides for a five-year term or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is e

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Opposition MPs in RS demand funds for infrastructure, education, central schemes

Opposition MPs in RS demand funds for infrastructure, education, central schemesGSTDated:- 16-12-2025PTINew Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) Opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday raised demands for release of pending dues to states for various ongoing central s

Opposition MPs in RS demand funds for infrastructure, education, central schemes
GST
Dated:- 16-12-2025
PTI
New Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) Opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday raised demands for release of pending dues to states for various ongoing central schemes as they sought more funds for development of infrastructure, education and other welfare activities.
Participating in the debate on supplementary demands for grants, S Niranjan Reddy, YSRCP MP from Andhra Pradesh, said that out of the additional expenditure of Rs 1.32 lakh crore sought by the government, the net outgo (actual fresh cash to be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India) amounts to Rs 41,455 crore.
According to him, a large portion of this fund ha

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

d that while the government has reduced GST on fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides still attract high GST rates, increasing the burden on farmers..
Prakash Chik Baraik, AITC MP from West Bengal, praised Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s leadership but accused the Centre of not releasing funds worth Rs 2 lakh crore due to the state for several centrally-funded projects.
CPI (M) MP from Kerala, AA Rahim also accused the Centre of discriminating against the state in the release of funds for relief measures for flood and landslide victims. Rahim further criticised the Union Government for increasing GST on the sale of lottery tickets in the state.
Another MP from Kerala, Sandosh Kumar P, representing the CPI in the Rajya Sabha, dema

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

nvestment reforms, Make in India and Startup India.
Tiwari said the Indian economy is performing extremely well under the Modi government, citing that 25 crore people have been lifted out of poverty, 54 universities and 12 IITs have featured in global rankings, grains are being exported to 131 countries, and India has become the world’s largest producer of milk, among several other positive developments.
G C Chandrashekhar of the Congress highlighted the “extra additional allocation of Rs 1.32 lakh crore”, claiming that unfortunately, the central government's allocation for popular programmes is not even implemented 50 per cent due to non-release of the funds. He also raised the issue of fertiliser subsidies and imports.
“India's ur

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Writ against GST demand dismissed; taxpayer directed to appeal u/s 107 CGST Act with extended deadline

Writ against GST demand dismissed; taxpayer directed to appeal u/s 107 CGST Act with extended deadlineCase-LawsGSTHC held the writ petition challenging the GST demand order and SCN as not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy

Writ against GST demand dismissed; taxpayer directed to appeal u/s 107 CGST Act with extended deadline
Case-Laws
GST
HC held the writ petition challenging the GST demand order and SCN as not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 CGST Act. The Court found the plea of non-access to the SCN and order via “additional notices' tab” not bona fide, noting the substantial delay, absence of explanation for non-response to SCN, and non-attendance of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Refund rejection communication u/s107(11) KGST & CGST held appealable; appellate dismissal set aside, remanded

Refund rejection communication u/s107(11) KGST & CGST held appealable; appellate dismissal set aside, remandedCase-LawsGSTHC held that the refund rejection communication issued under s.107(11) of the KGST & CGST Acts constituted a proper, appealable refun

Refund rejection communication u/s107(11) KGST & CGST held appealable; appellate dismissal set aside, remanded
Case-Laws
GST
HC held that the refund rejection communication issued under s.107(11) of the KGST & CGST Acts constituted a proper, appealable refund rejection order. The First Appellate Authority erred in summarily dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the incorrect premise that no refund rejection order existed and without recording any findings on merits or considering

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =