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

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...

GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Without Addressing Taxpayer’s Grounds: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an appellate order concerning cancellation of GST...

More like this

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...