Exemption from furnishing details in FORM GSTR-1 / GST CMP-08 by persons who furnished GSTR-3B

Exemption from furnishing certain details in FORM GSTR-1 / GST CMP-08 by persons who have furnished a return in GSTR-3B

MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)

Notification No.12/2020–Central Tax

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2020

G.S.R.195(E).—In exercise of thepowers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2019-Central Tax, dated the 23rd April, 2019, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 322(E), dated the 23rd April, 2019, namely:–

In the said notification, in paragraph 2, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: –

Provided that the said persons who have, instead of furnishing the statement containing the details of payment of self-assessed tax in FORM GST CMP-08 have furnished a return in FORM GSTR-3B under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) for the tax periods in the financial year 2019-20, such taxpayers shall not be required to furnish the statement in outward supply of goods or services or both in FORM GSTR-1 of the said rules or the statement containing the details of payment of self-assessed tax in FORM GST CMP-08 for all the tax periods in the financial year 2019-20.

[F. No. 20/06/03/2020-GST]

PRAMOD KUMAR, Director

Note:The principal notification number 21/2019–Central Tax, dated the 23rd April, 2019, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R.322(E), dated the 23rd April, 2019

• ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees
• PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO
• Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence
• When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken
• EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC