Rule 88C & Rule 88D - A Comprehensive Discussion
The differences between the liabilities declared in GSTR-1 and actual tax paid in GSTR-3B and the differences between ITC available as per GSTR-2B & ITC claimed in GSTR-3B are two core issues under GST. For handling such issues, the Central Government on the recommendations of the GST Council, had issued Rule 88C & 88D under CGST. In this article we will discuss about these rules, their implications and duties of taxpayers in this regard.
(A) Trigger point of Rule 88C (Difference between GSTR-1 & GSTR -3B):
Where the tax payable by a registered person, in accordance with the outward
supplies furnished in FORM GSTR-1 exceeds the amount of tax paid by him in
FORM
GSTR-3B. Then the said registered person shall be intimated of such difference
in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01B, electronically on the common portal, and a copy
of such intimation shall also be sent to his e-mail, highlighting the said
difference.
Taxpayer’s duties if Part A of FORM GST DRC-01B issued;
(a) Furnish a reply electronically on the common portal in Part B of
FORM GST
DRC-01B within 7 days and explain the reasons for the differential tax liability
that has remained unpaid; OR
(b) Pay
the amount of the differential tax liability through
FORM GST DRC-03 along with
interest and furnish the details thereof in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01B
electronically on the common portal within 7 days.
Reasons
for short payment of GST in GSTR-3B as compared to GSTR-1.
Followings
are some reasons due to which there can be a short payment of tax in GSTR-3B;
(a) GSTR-1 was filed with incorrect details like wrong tax rates, etc. and
due this the excess liability was reported in GSTR-1 but
GSTR-3B was filed with
correct figures and the GSTR-1 is to be amended in the next tax period.
Example: In November 2024, Mr. A has supplied a product the GST rate on which is 18% but Mr. A has charged 28% due to wrong classification and declare those supplies in GSTR-1 but while filing GSTR-3B the tax is deposited as per actual rate i.e., 18% and has to amend the said invoice in next month’s GSTR-1. In said situation there will be a mismatch in GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B of November 2024 as less tax is paid in GSTR-3B.
(b) Some transactions of earlier tax period which could not be declared in GSTR-1 of the said tax period but in respect of which tax has already been paid in FORM GSTR-3B of the said tax period and which have now been declared in GSTR-1 of the tax period under consideration.
Example: In the month of January 2025 the sale invoice number 18 was not declared in GSTR-1 due to error in auto population of data from e-invoice but while filing GSTR-3B of the January 2025 the GST was duly paid in respect of such invoice. Now, in February 2025 said invoice number is shown in GSTR-1 but not in GSTR-3B since the tax is already paid in GSTR-3B of January 2025
What if taxpayer neither furnished reply
nor paid the differential amount;
If the taxpayer fails to pay said amount or no reply is furnished by him or his
reply is not satisfactory then;
He will not be able to file GSTR -1 of next period and
Recovery proceedings u/s 79 of CGST Act 2017 would be initiated against him.
(B) Trigger point of Rule 88D (Difference in ITC as per GSTR-2B vs ITC claimed in GSTR-3B):
Where the amount of input tax credit availed by a registered person in FORM GSTR-3B exceeds the input tax credit available to such person in accordance with the auto-generated statement containing the details of input tax credit in FORM GSTR-2B. Then the said registered person shall be intimated of such difference in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01C, electronically on the common portal and a copy of such intimation shall also be sent to his e-mail address for highlighting the said differences.
Taxpayer’s duties if Part A of FORM GST DRC01C issued;
(a) Furnish a reply in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01C electronically on the
common portal within 7 days and explain the reasons in respect of the amount of
excess ITC OR
(b) Pay an amount equal to the excess ITC through
FORM GST DRC-03 along with
interest and furnish the details thereof in Part B of
FORM GST DRC-01C,
electronically on the common portal.
Reasons for excess claim of ITC in GSTR-3B as compared to GSTR-2B:
Goods in Transit i.e., ITC not availed in earlier tax period due to non-receipt of inward supplies of goods in the said tax period (including in case of receipt of goods in installments).
ITC not availed in earlier tax period(s) inadvertently or due to mistake or omission.
ITC availed in respect of import of goods, which is not reflected in FORM GSTR-2B.
ITC availed in respect of inward supplies from SEZ, which are not reflected in FORM GSTR-2B.
Excess reversal of ITC in previous tax periods which is being reclaimed in the current tax period.
Recredit of ITC on payment made to supplier, in respect of ITC reversed as per rule 37 in earlier tax period.
Recredit of ITC on filing of return by the supplier, in respect of ITC reversed as per rule 37A in earlier tax period.
FORM GSTR-3B filed with incorrect details and will be amended in the next tax period (including typographical errors, wrong tax rates, etc.)
What if
taxpayer neither furnished reply nor paid the differential amount;
If the
taxpayer fails to pay said amount or no reply is furnished by him or his reply
is not satisfactory then;
He will not be able to file GSTR -1 of next period and
The said amount shall be demanded in accordance with the provisions of section 73 or section 74 or section 74A.
How the
taxpayer can view the DRC01B & DRC01C:
Generally
if any notice is issued to the taxpayer on the common portal then the same can
be viewed by the taxpayer under the tab <<Services>> User Services>> View
notices & Orders >> Additional notices & orders.
However in respect of DRC-01B & DRC-01C, it is important to note that there is a separate tab on the GST portal to view the DRC-01B & DRC-01C issued against him. Which can be viewed under the tab <<Services>>Returns>>Return Compliance.
Disclaimer: The information given in this article is solely for purpose of understanding the law. It is completely based on the interpretation of the author and cannot be constituted as a legal advise, the author of this article and Lawcrux team is not responsible for any legal issues if arises on the basis of the interpretation given above.