No CA certificate required for reversal of ITC on discount given after supply made

No CA certificate required for reversal of ITC on discount given after the supply has been effected

Section 15 of CGST Act 2017 deals with value of Taxable Supply. Sub section (3) states that the value of the supply shall not include any discount which is given after the supply has been effected, if-

(i) such discount is established in terms of an agreement entered into at or before the time of such supply and specifically linked to relevant invoices; and

(ii) input tax credit as is attributable to the discount on the basis of document issued by the supplier has been reversed by the recipient of the supply.

CBIC later issued Circular No.-212/6/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 prescribing mechanism for providing evidence of compliance of conditions of Section 15(3)(b)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the suppliers. It was provided that till the time a functionality/ facility is made available on the common portal to enable the suppliers and tax officers to verify reversal of input tax credit, the supplier may procure a certificate from  the  recipient of supply, issued by the Chartered Accountant (CA) or the Cost Accountant (CMA), certifying that the recipient has made  the  required reversal of ITC.

It was provided that such certificates issued by the CA/CMA or the undertakings/ certificates issued by the recipient of supply, as the case may be, shall be treated as a suitable and admissible evidence for the purpose of section 15(3)(b)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017.

CBIC has issued Circular No. 253/10/2025 – GST dated 01.10.2025 withdrawing, the circular No. 212/6/2024-GST.

Therefore, the procedure prescribed vide the aforesaid circular for providing evidence of compliance of conditions of Section 15(3)(b)(ii) shall not be required.

• AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT
• FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied
• Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company
• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA