![What Happened In The Meeting Of Grievance Redressal Committee? [READ MoM]](https://www.jurishour.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Grievance-Redressal-Committee.webp "Grievance Redressal Committee")
A meeting of the Grievance Redressal Committee under the chairmanship of Sh. Shankar Prasad Sarma, Additional Commissioner, PCCO, CGST & CX, Delhi Zone and also Nodal Officer and Secretary of GRC was held on 27.03.2025.
In total 24 members were present in the meeting.
The Chair welcomed Ms. Asha Chaudhary Malhotra, Additional Commissioner, Delhi State GST and members of trade & industry. The Chair remarked that this is the last GRC meeting of the present FY and apprised the participants that the purpose of holding GRC meeting is to discuss operational issues being faced by the trade and to sort maximum issues in the presence of departmental officers attending the meeting.
The representative of ASSOCHAM highlighted the issues pertaining to mandatory ISD mechanism such as Inclusion of interstate procurements within purview of Input Service Distributor (‘ISD’) mechanism w.e.f. 01.04.2025, lack of clarity in Circular/clarifications issued regarding ISD, transfer of forward charge credit from normal registration, Reporting/ Distribution/SEZ issues in ISD etc.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that it is a policy matter and the trade association can represent to the Board under intimation to PCCO for consideration.
Return filed by OIDAR service provider does not provide any mechanism to capture the ITC details
ASSOCHAM representative recommended that Form GSTR-5A should be amended to provide mechanism for an OIDAR service provider to avail ITC.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee concurred with the issue raised by the trade body and advised to send a representation in the matter to Board for clarification.
Matching the E-way bill data with the GSTR1 and the GSTR3B
It was highlighted by CII representatives that presently Show cause notices are issued based on the difference found in the value declared in the E-way Bill and the value reported in the GSTR1 and GSTR-3B. Tax demands are confirmed for the differential amounts without going through the details of transactions causing unwarranted litigations and blocking of pre deposits in addition to the harassment faced by the taxpayers. It was suggested that during assessment or audit, department may ask for the details of difference, if any, however, while issuing the show cause notice specific e-way bill numbers should be mentioned with specific
details of goods and correct rate of tax applicable, rather than general demanding the tax on the differential amount at normal tax rate.
Recommendation of the Committee:
The Committee took note of the suggestion given by the trade body and assured to sensitize the departmental officers in this regard.
Matching data of the previous years reported as inadmissible/ blocked in the GSTR9/9C
The CII representative informed that while the department is auditing/ assessing the previous year’s records/ returns, the amount of ITC shown as inadmissible/ blocked in the GSTR9/9C is reviewed and when the registered person had himself taken notice of the inadmissible ITC, and not availed it, still specifically being asked to reverse the same. It was suggested to them to take the credit and reverse back in the present GSTR3B. Though it is revenue neutral exercise, it is causing apprehensions whether crediting the previous year’s inadmissible ITC in the present year’s returns may not add to another irregularity. The trade body requested to issue Clarification how to regularize the earlier inadvertent omissions to avoid unwarranted litigations.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee agreed with the apprehension of the trade body and informed that officers shall be trained and sensitized in this regard.
Offsetting of import and export proceeds
The issues faced by trade and industry while getting the GST refunds processed due to ambiguity in the law as to whether offsetting export and import proceeds and issuance of Foreign Inward Remittance Advice (FIRA)/ Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC)/ Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) on net basis would satisfy the documentation requirement for issuance of refund under the GST Law was highlighted. Section 54(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates that taxpayers seeking a refund must furnish all necessary documentary evidence as specified when submitting a refund application. In this context, Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, in conjunction with Circular No. 125/44/2019 dated 18 November 2019, outlines the requisite documentation to accompany the refund application. Among the documents listed, it is stipulated that in the event of a refund due to the export of services, with or without payment of tax, the applicant is required to provide the Foreign Inward Remittance Advice (FIRA) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) or Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC). Thus, in cases of refund of ITC on account of export of services, the submission of the BRC or FIRA or FIRC is required. It was suggested to issue suitable clarification to the effect that the receipt of export proceeds after netting off export and import proceeds is permissible subject to the fulfillment of RBI guidelines. Additionally, in cases of netting off, the FIRA/FIRC/BRC issued on a net basis should be considered a valid document for the purpose of issuing GST refunds.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that Department goes by the stipulated mandate w.r.t. the realization of export proceeds and the concerned taxpayer may approach the senior officers of the concerned formation if any issue is being faced.
GSTN Portal issues
The trade bodies brought up various issues faced on GSTN portal including issues regarding the GST Amnesty scheme, non transmission/ fetching of data from ICEGATE to GST portal, updating the GST mobile app etc.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee requested all the trade bodies to send a compiled note on issues faced while accessing GSTN portal so that the same can be forwarded to GSTN for early resolution.
Requirement of Rent/Lease Agreement as address proof for new GST registration/change of address in existing registration in case of Group Companies
It was brought to notice of the Committee that in case of group companies, generally the office space is either owned or taken on rent by the Holding Company and the subsidiary/associate companies are allowed to use some space in that office for the purpose of their business. Earlier the new registration/amendment in the GSTN was done on the basis of NOC from the Holding company allowing subsidiary/associate company to use the space. Now a days, there is an inconsistency in approach being followed by different officers on this subject, i.e. some are allowing new registration/amendment in existing one on the basis of NOC and some officers are rejecting the application for want of the rent/lease agreement in the name of the subsidiary/associated company. It was recommended that NOC from the holding company allowing use of the space to subsidiary/associate company should be accepted as a proof of the address by the officer while granting new registration/approving amendment in the existing registration.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee requested the concerned taxpayer to approach the senior officers of the concerned Commissionerate where the address of the taxpayer falls for smooth processing of applications filed by Group companies for new GST registration/change of address in existing registration.
8. Orders being passed by Officers without considering the submissions of the taxpayer
Some of members informed about the orders for FY 20-21 being passed on almost last day of the order becoming time barred without considering the submissions made by the taxpayers by simply giving the reason “that the taxpayer has not provided any supporting documents to substantiate there claim such as copy of invoices, details of invoices, month in which ITC is claimed etc. Hence, the reply filed by the taxpayer is not satisfied and demand is confirmed”. It was recommended that Order passed by the Officer should be subjected to review by his superior and reasonable orders should be passed. Secondly, if the Officer is not satisfied with the reply/documents of the taxpayer, he should ask for further details which provided him satisfaction about the claim of the taxpayer. This approach causes lot of trouble to the taxpayer, in the form of blocking its cash flow for filing appeal before Appellate Authority, enhances compliance burden and the litigation. Further the listed companies are required to report such unjustified demands to the Stock Exchanges.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that review mechanism is already in place for review of orders passed by the departmental officers. However, if any officer is not willing to accept the submissions of the taxpayer, the latter may approach senior officers on case to case basis.
9. Extension of time limits under Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A
During discussions, all trade bodies requested to extend the deadline of 31.03.2025, by at least 3 months, for payment of GST in order to avail benefit under Section 128A of the Act, so that more number of taxpayers can be covered under the scheme. Further, they also requested to extend the benefit of the scheme for financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 also, keeping in view the impact of COVID-19 pandemic which caused significant hardship for the trading communities.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that the request of the taxpayers will be communicated to Board for favourable consideration.
10. Mandate Physical Notification of Notices and Orders
It was brought to notice of the Committee that while returns are filed electronically, crucial notices related to assessments (Section 73, Section 74, Section 125), and other proceedings often go unnoticed until an accountant or the department informs them during recovery. This lack of timely awareness can lead to unnecessary complications and financial burdens. It was requested that all notices and orders related to assessments, demands, and other proceedings be mandatorily sent to the registered address of the entrepreneurs via speed post or registered mail, in addition to being uploaded on the portal. This dual communication method would greatly improve awareness and enable timely action by the concerned businesses.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee took note of the suggestion and informed that officers will be sensitized to send correspondences to taxpayers via speed post or registered mail, in addition to being uploaded on the portal.
Streamlined Process for Demand of Documents during GST Registration
It was informed that GST authorities are requesting documents like the landlord’s PAN/Aadhar and the assessee’s ITR, even though the GST rules don’t mandate them and the portal already allows submission of key documents like the rent/lease agreement and NOC. Applications are sometimes repeatedly rejected due to these requests. This creates unnecessary delays and burdens on applicants. It was requested to issue clear guidelines restricting document demands to those explicitly prescribed by law to streamline the registration process.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that officers have been directed to seek documents prescribed in SOPs/Circulars only.
Unjustified Conversion of Proceedings from Section 73 to Section 74
It was brought to the notice of the Committee that when third-party errors cause incorrect document submissions, authorities drop Section 73 proceedings (non-fraudulent tax shortfall) but then wrongly initiate Section 74 proceedings (willful suppression/fraud). Section 74 carries stringent penalties and assumes intent to defraud, which is unfair when the errors are inadvertent. It was requested to sensitize the officers to differentiate between genuine mistakes and willful suppression.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that Conversion of Proceedings from Section 73 to Section 74 is not done without genuine reasons. However, the concerned taxpayer may approach the senior officers of the concerned Commissionerate if the taxpayer is of the opinion that proceedings have been wrongly converted from Section 73 to Section 74.
Issues faced in GST Registration
Issues faced such as lack of clarity on documentation for shared business premises, seeking of additional documents, no option to withdraw or edit applications was raised during the meeting and requested to simplify the process.
Recommendation of the Committee :
The Committee informed that w.e.f. March 01st ,2025 new registration applications are being processed at Division level and issues, if any faced by the applicant can be raised with the Divisional Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner for quick resolution. As regards lack of clarity on documentation for shared business premises, it was informed that the issue is in the knowledge of Board and clarifications can be expected in due course.
Mandatory Notice viewing before portal assess- suggested mechanism for effective communication
It was informed that under the erstwhile VAT regime, taxpayers could access their login only after reading any pending notices, ensuring deemed receipt and acknowledgement of communications. It was recommended that a similar feature should be introduced in the GST portal to make it mandatory for taxpayers to view notices before proceeding further. This will strengthen communication, reduce disputes over non-receipt, and ensure timely compliance.
Recommendation of the Committee:
The Committee appreciated the suggestion and requested to send a representation to GSTN under intimation to PCCO for necessary action in the matter.
Mandatory requirement of DRC-03A in SPL-02 (GST Amnesty Scheme Application)
The trade bodies requested for clarity in cases where appeals are partially accepted, resulting in liability less than the pre-deposit or where direct payments are made through the Electronic Liability Register (ELR), as in such cases, submission of DRC-03A becomes practically impossible.
Recommendation of the Committee:
The Committee informed that representation may be sent to Board for issuance of clarification in the matter.
Incorrect Input Tax Credit (ITC) Distribution for Multiple Warehouses (Accurate Apportionment):
It was brought to the notice of the Committee that Assessing officers are incorrectly distributing ITC across all warehouses based on the state-wide turnover ratio, even when only one warehouse primarily engages in taxable activities, instead of allowing ITC attribution to the specific warehouse leading to excessive ITC disallowance and inflated tax liability. It was recommended to issue instructions ensuring ITC apportionment is based on the actual usage of inputs in taxable activities, allowing attribution to the warehouse engaged in taxable activities, rather than a blanket turnover-based method.
Further, the issue relating to Department’s claim that ECOs are wrongly discharging their 18% forward charge liability under the 5% causing undue burden on compliant taxpayers was raised. It was requested to recognise system-generated transaction summaries, GSTR filings, and other electronic records as valid proof and issue clarification or guidance on acceptable documentation and reporting methods for ECOs
Recommendation of the Committee:
The Committee informed that since Board can issue such instructions, a representation may be sent to Board.
Enhanced Scope and Time Limit for Rectification of Errors under Section 161 of CGST Act:
It was informed that in many cases, orders issued by GST officers impose substantial tax liabilities on taxpayers due to erroneous interpretation of facts. The current scope and time limit of Section 161 (Rectification of Errors) are insufficient to address these issues effectively, leading to unnecessary appeals and burdening appellate authorities. It was recommended to enhance the scope of Section 161 to allow for rectification of errors stemming from incorrect factual interpretations, and extending the time limit for such rectifications.
Recommendation of the Committee:
The Committee advised the concerned taxpayers to approach the revisionary authority for resolution of their grievances on case to case basis.
Empowering the First Appellate Authority to Set Aside Ex-Parte Orders:
It was brought to the notice of the Committee that currently, the First Appellate Authority may lack the explicit power to set aside a matter back to the Assessing Authority when dealing with ex-parte orders (orders passed without the assessee’s representation). This can force taxpayers into further appeals even when a simple remand to the Assessing Authority could resolve the matter. It was requested that to recommend an amendment or clarification to explicitly empower the First Appellate Authority to set aside matters back to the Assessing Authority in cases of ex-parte orders, where deemed appropriate. This would streamline the appeal process and provide a more efficient resolution mechanism.
Recommendation of the Committee:
The Committee informed that appellate authority is independent entity and passes order on merit and the basis of available records. The taxpayers can make submissions of their contention to the appellate authority for consideration.
