Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTGlitch in Auto-populated Figures of B2C in GSTR-9 When Amendments Are Made...

Glitch in Auto-populated Figures of B2C in GSTR-9 When Amendments Are Made for Previous FY 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

A significant systemic glitch has been noticed in the GST portal’s auto-populated data for Table B2C of GSTR-9, particularly affecting cases where amendments pertaining to the previous financial year are made in the current financial year.

Tax professionals and businesses have reported that when an amendment related to B2C invoices of FY 2023–24 is made during FY 2024–25, the auto-populated figures in the Annual Return (GSTR-9) for FY 2024–25 are incorrectly adjusted. This anomaly appears only in the B2C section, while B2B amendments are being reflected accurately in the relevant tables.

When a taxpayer amends B2C invoices of FY 2023–24 in FY 2024–25 (for example, correcting taxable value or tax amount), the system erroneously adds or reduces the corresponding figures in Table 4 of GSTR-9 for FY 2024–25.

However, as per the GST law and the structure of the annual return Table 4 of GSTR-9 should reflect details only of transactions pertaining to the reporting year (i.e., FY 2024–25). Amendments of the preceding year should not impact this table.

This misalignment leads to inaccurate reporting of outward supplies, creating potential mismatches and confusion during reconciliation.

B2B vs. B2C Discrepancy

The issue seems confined to the B2C segment. When taxpayers make B2B amendments (for example, adding or modifying invoices of FY 2023–24 in FY 2024–25), the GST portal processes these changes correctly — reflecting them under “Amendments relating to supplies of earlier financial years” and not disturbing the current year’s Table 4 values.

In contrast, for B2C amendments, the system is incorrectly netting off such adjustments within the current year’s turnover figures, thereby distorting total taxable value and tax liability auto-populated in the GSTR-9.

Read More: LOOK AT New Simplified Online GST Registration Interface

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 10, 2026.GSTGST RE-CREDIT CAN’T BE ALLOWED...

Custody Not Required After Customs Investigation Concludes, SCN Is Issued: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail

The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a person accused of offences...

Personal Hearing Can’t Precede Deadline for GST Notice Reply: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes S. 73 Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a GST assessment order after finding that...

GST | Time period of 3 months for deciding rectification filed under Notification giving benefit of S. 16(5) is Directory: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a GST rectification application filed within the...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 10, 2026.GSTGST RE-CREDIT CAN’T BE ALLOWED...

Custody Not Required After Customs Investigation Concludes, SCN Is Issued: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail

The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a person accused of offences...

Personal Hearing Can’t Precede Deadline for GST Notice Reply: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes S. 73 Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a GST assessment order after finding that...