Ques:

: data filled in Table 12 and Table 13 of GSTR-9C through following case study

CASE STUDY- ITC of Prev. Year Claimed in Current F. Y. (Part-III of GSTR-9)
6(A) ITC availed as per GSTR-3B – Rs. 100
(A1) ITC of Prev. Year 23-24 – Rs. 10
A2 Net ITC 24-25 – Rs. 90 (Table 8A ITC As per GSTR-2B)
6(B) —————– – Rs. 90
7(H) Reverse ITC for 24-25 – Rs. 7
7(J) Net ITC for Utilisation – Rs. 83 (Table 12E of GSTR-9C)

What will be figure Entered in Tables of GSTR-9C (Part-IV)
12(A) As per audited Annual Financial Statement ——
12(B) As per Prev. Year ITC Rs. 10
12(D) As per audited financial statement ——–
12(E) ITC Claimed in GSTR-9 Rs. 83

What will be effect in Table 13 ——–

Ans:

Figures to be reported in Table 12 of GSTR-9C (Part-IV)

• Table 12(A) – ITC as per audited annual financial statement:
  This should reflect ITC pertaining to FY 2024-25 as per books, i.e. ₹90 (ITC relating to current year only).
• Table 12(B) – ITC booked in earlier financial years claimed in current year:
  ₹10 (ITC of FY 2023-24 claimed in FY 2024-25, as specifically identified).
• Table 12(C) – ITC booked in current FY to be claimed in subsequent FY:
  Nil (as per the facts given).
• Table 12(D) – ITC as per audited financial statement or books (derived figure):
  ₹90 (same as 12A, since no deferred ITC).
• Table 12(E) – ITC claimed in Annual Return (GSTR-9):
  ₹83 (after reversal of ₹7, matching Table 7J of GSTR-9).

Effect in Table 13 of GSTR-9C (Reconciliation of ITC)

• The difference of ₹7 between Table 12(D) ₹90 and Table 12(E) ₹83 will appear in Table 13.
• This difference should be explained as “ITC reversed during the year” (eligible reversal for FY 2024-25).
• No additional tax liability arises, since the reversal is already reflected in returns.
• The ₹10 prior-year ITC does not create a mismatch, as it is separately reconciled in Table 12(B) and hence stands fully explained.

Ques: what is Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari [2024 (89) GSTL 62 (Bombay)

Ans:

Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. Union of India [2024 (89) GSTL 62 (Bom.)] is a significant Bombay High Court judgment laying down important safeguards on the exercise of coercive powers under the CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that arrest under section 69 read with section 132 is a drastic and exceptional power, which can be exercised only after the Commissioner forms an independent, reasoned and bona fide “opinion to believe” based on tangible material, and not merely because an investigation is pending, summons have been issued, or a tax liability is alleged. Arrest cannot be used as a tool of recovery or coercion, and constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 must be strictly respected; it should be resorted to only where necessary, such as to prevent evasion, tampering of evidence, or non-cooperation.

The Court further clarified the distinct and independent nature of section 130 (confiscation of goods and conveyance), observing that proceedings under section 130 are civil in nature and separate from criminal prosecution. Mere initiation or possibility of confiscation proceedings does not automatically justify arrest, nor can arrest be treated as a natural consequence of alleged contraventions attracting section 130. The judgment thus reinforces that sections 69/132 and section 130 operate in different spheres, and that the existence of confiscation proceedings cannot dilute the strict legal thresholds required for arrest, affirming the principles of proportionality, due process, and procedural fairness in GST enforcement.

Ques: My client has purchased certain materials and now intends to return the same. However, the supplier is reluctant to issue a credit note or arrange for pickup of the material from my client’s premises. In view of the above, my client proposes to raise a debit note on the supplier and return the goods by generating an e-way bill. Kindly clarify whether such debit note is also required to be reported on the Invoice Registration Portal (IRP), or not. Also clarify whether this is correct treatment or do he need to raise a invoice in place of debit note.

Ans: Under GST law, return of goods by the buyer cannot be effected through a debit note, as section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017 permits issuance of a debit note only by the supplier and not by the recipient; therefore, a debit note raised by the buyer has no legal recognition for GST purposes. Where the supplier is unwilling to issue a credit note, the correct and legally valid treatment is for the buyer to issue a tax invoice treating the return of goods as a fresh outward supply under section 31, and accordingly return the goods. If the buyer is covered under e-invoicing provisions, such tax invoice must be reported on the Invoice Registration Portal (IRP) and an IRN must be generated, whereas the question of reporting a buyer-issued debit note on IRP does not arise. The e-way bill should also be generated on the basis of this tax invoice, not merely on a debit note, to ensure full statutory compliance and avoid future disputes.