Nice analysis sir...We need a detailed analysis from you on eligibility of input in case of cancellation of GST registration of supplier with retrospective effect
Sir, as per section 122(I)(ii) penalty will be 10,000 or ITC pass on which one is higher. Menas fake bill issuers "A" have to pay penalty equal to amout of ITC they passed. Pls have a look
Sir now adays if not charge mobile after valid date it stops immediately but in gst how a and b making money and c is punished in this digital era. Your videos are very good
Sir, But Section 74 also provides that "where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud". So B is availing ITC wrongly and in my opinion, he should be issued a notice under section 74.
In your case if 1) "B" receive goods - case 2) if C received goods but he gets notice from GST Bcz case 1&2 B & C this is genuine buyer But case 1&2 A&B make froude with B&C Pls help what B&C do
Supply not done by A but he is collected Tax and this notification A not to pay any tax it is wrong.so this notification encourage to fake suppliers and punished to recipient.
Suppose an officer issues a SCN regarding availment of credit without actually receiving goods, now all the precautions you mentioned has been taken by assessee, but officer willfully ignores all those and issues Demand order. Now either assessee has to pay to tha tax etc or go to appeal where again he has to give deposit and bear the long litigation process. Now appeals and first officer(who in most areas are in close contact to each other) can take benefit from this situation as assessee doesn't have a further appeal to go to 😅😅 (tribunal doesn't exist and High court won't entertain this being a matter fact) 🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️ serious injustice to innocent taxpayers 😅😅😅 Onus to proof that credit is being utilised without actual supply of goods should be on the officer !!! (Somewhat like sec 148 of Income Tax act where the adjudicating officer has to note down "reasons to believe" )
Bimal ji is a genius. Simply love listening to him always
Thank you for your spirit Sir.. God bless you
Sir u are much correct nobody is ready to talk on this issue
Many Many Thanks Sir,
Explanation very clearly
Nice analysis sir...We need a detailed analysis from you on eligibility of input in case of cancellation of GST registration of supplier with retrospective effect
Thank u soo much for These RUclips Videos
This helps a lot
Thanks sir for insight on this important topic 🙏🙏💐
Sir, as per section 122(I)(ii) penalty will be 10,000 or ITC pass on which one is higher. Menas fake bill issuers "A" have to pay penalty equal to amout of ITC they passed.
Pls have a look
If A shows invoice in GSTR1 and it get displayed in GSTR2 of B then also it is fake?
sir and payment also made thru bank rtgs and cheques
Sir now adays if not charge mobile after valid date it stops immediately but in gst how a and b making money and c is punished in this digital era.
Your videos are very good
Sir,
But Section 74 also provides that "where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud". So B is availing ITC wrongly and in my opinion, he should be issued a notice under section 74.
I also agree with you
What is penalty amount under sec 122(7)
Useful topics discussed. Thanks.
In your case if 1) "B" receive goods - case 2) if C received goods but he gets notice from GST
Bcz case 1&2 B & C this is genuine buyer
But case 1&2 A&B make froude with B&C
Pls help what B&C do
Thanks vimal bhai
Thank you sir ji
Thank sir
Thanks sir fir your clarification
Sir कृपया साथ ही साथ हिंदी मे भी विश्लेषण किया करें । हम हिंदीभाषी लोगों को समझने मे आसानी होगी ।
will try ji
👌👌
Supply not done by A but he is collected Tax and this notification A not to pay any tax it is wrong.so this notification encourage to fake suppliers and punished to recipient.
B & C have all good LR Revd in warehouse with records
Suppose an officer issues a SCN regarding availment of credit without actually receiving goods, now all the precautions you mentioned has been taken by assessee, but officer willfully ignores all those and issues Demand order. Now either assessee has to pay to tha tax etc or go to appeal where again he has to give deposit and bear the long litigation process. Now appeals and first officer(who in most areas are in close contact to each other) can take benefit from this situation as assessee doesn't have a further appeal to go to 😅😅 (tribunal doesn't exist and High court won't entertain this being a matter fact) 🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️ serious injustice to innocent taxpayers 😅😅😅 Onus to proof that credit is being utilised without actual supply of goods should be on the officer !!! (Somewhat like sec 148 of Income Tax act where the adjudicating officer has to note down "reasons to believe" )
Thank u sir.
Nice
Very good decision
Thank you sir
Nice