Advisory for furnishing bank account details by registered taxpayers under GST Rule 10A

Advisory for furnishing bank account details by registered taxpayers under Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Mandatory Bank Account Details Submission as per law:

All Registered Taxpayers are required under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding Rules framed thereunder to furnish details of their bank account/s within 30 days of the grant of registration or before the due date of filing GSTR-1/IFF, whichever is earlier.

Taxpayers are therefore advised to promptly furnish their bank account details, who have not provided it so far if 30 Days period is shortly going to expire to avoid disruption in business activities and the subsequent suspension of GSTIN.

A new functionality is being developed with the following features and will be deployed in near future:-

1. Failure to furnish the bank account in the stipulated time: It would result into following:

(a) Taxpayer Registration would get suspended after 30 days and intimation in FORM REG-31 will be issued to the Taxpayer.

(b) Get the Taxpayer debarred from filing any further GSTR-1/IFF.

2. Revocation of Suspension: If the taxpayer updates their bank account details in response to the intimation in FORM REG-31, the suspension will be automatically revoked.

3. Cancellation of Registration: If the bank account details are not updated even after 30 days of issuance of FORM REG-31, the registration after suspension may also be taken up for cancellation process by the Officer.

Taxpayers are requested to take immediate action to provide the necessary information and avoid any adverse consequences.

• No disallowance u/s 43B if expenditure not claimed in Profit and Loss Account
• Assessee developing infrastructure facility of Govt. not contractor for denying 80IA deduction
• Jurisdictional PCIT/CIT to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A for Registration u/s 12A
• AO not justified in making addition by adopting extrapolation without any material evidence
• Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers decided by CoC