Browsed by
Tag: GST law

UT ranks first in GST return compliance

UT ranks first in GST return compliance

In a major achievement, the UT Excise and the Taxation Department has topped the country in the GST 3B monthly tax return compliance rating of 92.44 per cent among all states and UTs in the first four months of the current financial year. This has been revealed in the latest report of the GST collection and compliance. In this category, Punjab (87.72 per cent) stood second and Gujarat (86.35 per cent) third.

Sources said the city had around 18,000 registered dealers and it was ensured that maximum dealers filed the returns under the GST law. The department has recently carried out an intensive physical checking of the dealers who had not been filing their returns. After the checking, the GST registration of over 806 dealers, who failed to file return for more than six months, was cancelled. Notices have been issued to other dealers who did not file their returns.

Sources said the checking was started on the direction of Excise and Taxation Commissioner Mandeep Singh Brar, who now directed the department officials to achieve the target of up to 95 per cent GST return compliance.
The steps have been taken to ensure there was no tax evasion at the dealers’ end.

The department has collected Rs 466.94 crore as tax in the last four months with a hike of over 12 per cent against the corresponding period last year. RK Chaudhary, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, said the department also carried out a survey in various markets and directed dealers to issue proper bills to consumers.

Source: Tribune-India

Ease Your GST Filing & Invoice with XaTTaX GST Software

IT companies challenge government’s plan to brand BPOs as brokers & GST in court 

IT companies challenge government’s plan to brand BPOs as brokers & GST in court 

Are outsourcing units and BPOs merely intermediaries and brokers or are they exporters? About a week after the government released directions that Information Technology (IT) and Information Technology enabled Services (ITES) companies would attract 18 per cent goods and services tax (GST) for several exporters, some intermediaries have challenged the constitutional validity of such a regulation. 

Several back offices of BPOs and KPOs, already fighting the margin pressure, will have to pay 18 per cent GST after a government circular on July 18 said certain services shouldn’t be categorised as exports. As per the earlier tax regime, these companies did not attract any tax and up until 2018, even under GST, these companies would even get refunds for the input tax credits. 

However, following an authority of advance rulings (AAR) directive last December, indirect tax department had started issuing notices to several IT/ITES companies demanding up 18 per cent GST on money received on convertible foreign exchange. 

“The recent circular on intermediaries means that several back end services rendered to foreign service recipients would attract 18 per cent GST due to the place of provision of such services. We have challenged the constitutional validity of the place of provisions for intermediaries on various grounds in Gujarat High Court and the arguments would cover relief for different players including the services mentioned in the circular,” said Abhishek A Rastogi, a partner at Khaitan & Co. 

The government circular goes into length in explaining how GST should be levied on certain IT/ITES services supplied outside India as these are not exports but merely broking services. The indirect tax department had started issuing preliminary notices to captive units of multinationals and Indian companies exporting offshore support services. 

Industry trackers said the question now was whether BPOs are commission agents and brokers. If so, they would not be considered exporters and their revenues would be subject to taxes as only exports are exempted from domestic taxes and receive certain benefits. So, services provided by Indian entities to foreign companies would not be treated as exports and hence taxable in India. 

“Many BPOs and KPOs are already moving to Philippines in last few years and such a hit on the margins is set to push many more there,” said a senior tax official with an Indian IT firm. 

India currently boasts of an outsourcing market of about $50 billion a year. The government stand is set to impact the $13 bn outsourcing industry that is already facing pressure on margins, said a person in the know. 

“While the circular is not binding on the taxpayer, it’s binding on the tax officials; which means that many companies will stop getting refunds,” said a person advising one of the IT companies on the issue. 

Earlier, industry body Assocham and an IT lobby group had raised concerns around the future tax liability due to the government’s stand. Experts said under the earlier indirect tax regime, an intermediary was mainly a broker or a commission agent. However, any company supplying support services to a multinational was not treated as an intermediary. 

In the past, companies and tax experts had reached out to the government on the subject. They wanted the government to look at amending the law to treat any service provided by Indian companies as zero-rated or non-taxable if the customers were based overseas

Source: Economic-Times

XaTTaX is Best GST Software, Simplify your Financial matters with GST eFiling Software for Return Filing & GST Billing Software in India.

  • Automate Invoicing and get Paid Faster
  • Integration with all popular accounting software
  • Manage your GST and E-WayBill Software anytime anywhere using multiple devices

Get Our GST Software DEMO and E-WAY BILL DEMO for FREE

Firms may get to raise prices after transferring GST cuts

Firms may get to raise prices after transferring GST cuts

Companies are free to raise prices of products and services as per their business cycle without fear of getting caught in the anti-profiteering provision in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law once they have passed on the benefit of tax rate cuts to consumers, said a government official.

The clarification from the official, who has knowledge of how the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) and its investigative arm work, comes at a time when ambiguity in the law and the recent extension of the profiteering watchdog’s tenure as well as an increase in penalty for violation have led to concerns that the pricing liberty of businesses stands curtailed.

Analysts said that due to lack of guidelines on how to implement anti-profiteering provisions in the Central GST Act, companies are not sure how long they are expected to maintain a price after they reduce price to pass on the benefit of a tax cut to consumers. This is also worrisome for companies that have faced charges of profiteering for specific periods in the past. The law is silent on how long companies have to maintain the reduced price after a tax rate cut. This open ended provision, in effect, results in price administration, they said. Under GST law, not passing on the benefits of tax rate reduction or availability of input tax credits to consumers by businesses and merchants amounts to profiteering.

The liberty to increase price as per the business cycle will come as a relief to companies, especially large fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturers that have faced ‘profiteering’ charges under GST law.

“Whenever there is a reduction in GST rate, businesses have to pass on the benefit to consumers immediately. Thereafter, companies are free to follow their cycle of price adjustments as they deem fit in line with market forces. There is no lock-in period for maintaining reduced prices,” said the first official cited above, who spoke on condition of anonymity. If a company has increased prices of products in a particular month in the past, that is a valid explanation for a price increase subsequent to reducing prices in line with a tax rate cut. Businesses, however, should be in a position to defend themselves in case of a complaint, said the person.

Experts said it may not be a very easy task for businesses to defend price increases considering the complexities in the overall business environment and pricing. They said past price trends may show movement both ways and may not be sufficient to justify a price increase in case of a profiteering investigation.

“Businesses may at times want to increase margins on a better selling product to offset losses in other products. There is still an ambiguity on whether that increase in margin for some products would be acceptable by the authorities as a justification for a price increase. Separately, industry has also been looking forward to detailed guidelines on calculating the amount of benefit to be passed on and in specific, the duration for which the reduced price is to be continued,” said EY tax partner Abhishek Jain.

The other factor that has got businesses worried is the perpetual nature of the anti-profiteering provision in the CGST Act although the tenure of the NAA is defined. The provision which mandates immediate price reduction of goods and services commensurate with the tax cut, does not specify a sunset clause. A second government official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the anti-profiteering provision may be administered by any designated government official or agency in a less elaborate way after NAA’s term ends as the tax system would have stabilised by then. The GST Council extended the term of NAA by two years in June, which enables it to continue to work till end of 2021. The Council had also in June decided to let NAA impose a penalty equivalent to 10% of the profiteered amount on those who pocket the tax benefit meant for consumers.

Ease Your GST Return Filing & Invoice with XaTTaX- GST Software

Source: LiveMint
GST evaders beware: Risky taxpayers to be profiled to pre-empt dodging

GST evaders beware: Risky taxpayers to be profiled to pre-empt dodging

In a bid to pre-empt tax evasion under the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the government is looking at options to deal with taxpayers based on their risk profile. Assessees identified as ‘risky’ could face restrictions on issuing invoices, utilisation of input tax credit and sanctioning of refunds.

The government has been grappling with evasion through fake invoice since the GST was launched two years ago. The indirect tax department has detected such frauds worth over Rs 12,000 crore. A tax official said the rule of the thumb indicated that detected frauds were only about 10% in value of actual frauds being committed, which would take actual evasion to nearly Rs 1.2 lakh crore.

The GST Council, which is the apex decision-making body for the GST, has constituted a committee of officers (CoO) to suggest parameters for risk-based profiling so that a taxpayer could be categorised as risky in an automated manner. Further, the CoO will identify methods for assessing financial credibility of a taxpayer vis-a-vis its GST profile. The committee will submit a report to the GST Council on August 15.

According to the terms of reference (ToR) for the committee, it will also suggest changes in GST law and rules to enable profiling and regulating risky taxpayers, including invocation of penal provisions in case of failure to undertake desired know your customer (KYC) verification. Further, the panel is required to suggest “measures for implementation of suggested risk-based management on immediate basis and any other measures, mechanism and machinery to check and curb multiple type of frauds,” the ToR said.

The official quoted above said recovery of tax evasion after it has happened was onerous and doesn’t yield results as often fly-by-night operators are not found at their addresses. It was important, he added, that pre-emptive mechanisms were employed to detect the likely instance of frauds before they took place.

XaTTaX – World Class Automated eSolution for Return filing and e-Waybill

Source: Financial-Express
Anti-profiteering in GST: Caught in litigation, extension in tenure may not be enough

Anti-profiteering in GST: Caught in litigation, extension in tenure may not be enough

Anti-profiteering provisions have been in force for nearly two years and at the recent GST Council meeting the tenure of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has been extended for two more years, till November 2021. Although the key reason given for this extension was the large pendency of complaints (around 350) which still needs to be investigated, it is fair to say that the presumption is that GST benefits are still not being passed on to consumers. But is the extension of tenure all that is required to ensure compliance with these provisions?

There are also reports that the GST Council, along with the extension of the tenure of the NAA, has approved a new mechanism to check profiteering. Tax officers have been empowered to conduct anti-profiteering checks in their jurisdictions. This clearly signals that complaints and investigations on profiteering will increase and the NAA will be around for much longer than the recent two-year extension. A new penalty may also may be imposed if the profiteered amount is not surrendered within a prescribed time limit.

Given that anti-profiteering related investigations will increase and impose heavier fiscal penalties there is an urgent need to address three key issues:

Introduce an appellate mechanism, within the GST law, for appealing the orders of the NAA;
Broaden the membership of the NAA to include a judicial member; and
Define methodologies/frameworks for compliance.

This will ensure that the core objective of ensuring that benefit of GST is passed on to consumers, is achieved in an efficient and timely manner.

It is worth noting that when NAA was originally constituted in November 2017 for a period of two years, it was set up primarily as a deterrent to big businesses and hence envisioned that its actions would be restricted. This is far from reality and the actions of the NAA have been far more widespread and have impacted almost all sectors and all sizes of businesses.

Considering that there is no appellate mechanism prescribed under the GST laws against an order of the NAA, can it be assumed that the government had not expected challenges on such orders? Whatever may have been the thinking on this aspect, the legal view adopted is that the law does not provide a statutory mandate to appeal orders of the NAA before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. Hence, the only recourse for taxpayers is to file a writ petition in the High Court.

Almost all orders of the NAA where profiteering has been alleged, are being challenged in various High Courts. In most cases the courts have stayed the orders and the litigation is in progress. With most NAA orders being embroiled in litigation, the key purpose of the existence of the NAA, which is to ensure that the GST benefit is passed on to the consumer, is yet to be achieved. An alternative form of recourse is required which should assist in the faster resolution of cases.

Some of the writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions. While this challenge is being deliberated by the courts, the government may be able to address some of the other concerns/issues that have been raised.

In the absence of a statutory appellate process, the decision of the High Courts on anti-profiteering matters, will very likely be sent back to the NAA for implementation. This may create a conflict, as the authority that has passed the original order will have to review the orders based on directions of the High Court and then pass a revised order. This is likely to give rise to further litigation. One option to address could be to induct a judicial member on the NAA to ensure that a legal view is also taken into consideration while deliberating on High Court orders. Another option may be to create a body within the NAA to review and implement the orders of the High Court. There may be other options as well and the government should explore all possible alternatives to address this issue. In all such cases, the focus of the NAA should be to resolve the matter, pass on the benefit to the consumer and not litigate further.

As it is likely that anti-profiteering related investigations will increase going forward, there is also an urgent need to introduce an appellate mechanism, within the GST law, for challenging the orders of the NAA. This will ensure that going forward, writ jurisdiction is not the only option for challenging orders of the NAA and may also result in faster resolution of cases.

One key and outstanding demand of tax payers is for a specific mechanism/methodology to calculate profiteering. This may minimise the subjectivity in the investigation process and therefore litigation. The NAA’s position has been, and remains, that a standard methodology cannot be prescribed for all sectors and hence none is being prescribed. This position needs to be revisited urgently, more so as the NAA now has the benefit of experience from over a hundred investigations. The contradictory positions being adopted in some orders has also added to the complexity of complying with the provisions. One option could be to reconstitute sector-specific committees, set up during GST implementation, which were headed by senior tax officers. These committees can provide guidance on prescribing methodology for compliance with the anti-profiteering provisions.

With the focus once again on initiatives for improving Ease of Doing Business in India, anti-profiteering related concerns of taxpayers do need to be addressed on a priority. The trust deficit between the business and tax administration on this subject needs to be reduced to ensure that the key purpose of the consumer benefiting by GST implementation, is served.

XaTTaX: Cloud and On-Premises Based GST Filing Software For India

Source: Economic-Times.
Advance Ruling Authority under GST: Does it really solve the taxpayer’s issues?

Advance Ruling Authority under GST: Does it really solve the taxpayer’s issues?

Since the advent of GST Laws, trade and industry have faced multifarious issues relating to uploading of returns, availing legacy Cenvat credit under TRAN-1 form, various confusions regarding the generation of e-way bills and many other such small issues.

When the Government introduced the Advance Ruling Authority under GST, it sought to provide a much wider coverage as compared to the earlier Excise and Service Tax Regime, in order to provide an early resolution of the potential tax dispute coming from the trade and industry. For the first time in any Tax Legislation, an appeal mechanism was provided against the orders passed by the Advance Ruling Authority which was absent under the earlier laws and also under the existing Income Tax Act.

This welcome step by the Govt was met with overwhelming support from the trade and industry and as a result, thousands of applications were filed before the Advance Ruling Authority seeking clarification on a variety of tax issues. Surprisingly, the Advance Ruling Authorities of various states had not only come up with contradictory rulings on the same subject but also most of the rulings were decided in favour of the revenue only. Further, the applicants rarely got any relief before the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling as well.

Probably, the constitution of this forum, which consists only of revenue officers and not having an independent judicial member is one of the biggest reasons for this outcome. Hence, instead of getting relief, the trade and industry started facing this unique challenge.

This situation was further worsened by the recent order passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of JSW Energy Limited wherein it has been held that no appeal can be filed against an order of the Appellate Authority of Advance Rulings on “merits” since no appeal has been provided under the GST Act. Without going into the merit of this judgment, which seems to have ignored the well-settled proposition of law that a writ petition is indeed maintainable before the High Court, the order of the High Court has certainly created chaos in the Industry.

Seeing this trend, strong perception in the Trade and Industry is getting build as to why one should even approach the Advance Ruling Authority who is likely to decide the matter against the assessee and when practically there is no appeal mechanism against the said order. Whereas if the assessee opts the route of the adjudication, the doors of the tribunal as well as the courts would always be open to seek relief. Given this, it appears that the whole objective of creating this forum to provide speedy resolution of issues, instead of going through the long-drawn litigation route, is getting defeated.

Hence, it was a genuine wish and demand of the industry that the Government should bring some reform in the structure and give life to this forum. Appreciating the need of the industry, the newly elected government in this Budget tried to address this issue by introducing the National Appellate Tribunal for Advance Ruling (NATAR) under Section 101A of the CGST Act, 2017. The proposed NATAR will be presided upon by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or any High Court and would be accompanied by two technical members representing both the central and the state government.

The composition of the NATAR appears to solve the issue of departmental bias, by introducing a judicial member and also introducing an option of appeal against orders of the Appellate Authority which was previously absent under the GST Laws. However, the wording of proposed Section 101B of CGST Act suggests that an appeal before NATAR would lie only in cases where the views taken either by the members of Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling constituted in the same state or in different states are contradictory.

Though this new proposal by the Government seems to provide relief in some aspects i.e. when there are contradictory views from either of the members of the same Bench or amongst the co-ordinate Benches of different states. However, there is no relief provided against the order of the AAAR if the ruling goes against the assessee. Therefore, the NATAR would have a limited utility and this brings the taxpayer back to square one.

As per the trend of the Advance Authority Rulings thus far, it has been seen that two co-ordinate benches of the Appellate Authority rarely differ in their views when it comes to a single issue. Similarly, a situation wherein the members of the same bench of the Appellate Authority (who are both departmental officers) differ in their opinions, is also rare. Therefore, the NATAR will be limited to addressing rare situations wherein conflicting views have been taken by two or more Appellate Authorities (of different states) or two members of the same Appellate Authority Bench. Thus, despite the introduction of NATAR, effectively there is still no appellate forum available to the assessee having an adverse order of the AAAR.

This issue will only be solved if the NATAR is given wider powers to adjudicate on “any” order passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence while passing the Bill, the Government should make suitable changes in the Bill to provide the much-anticipated relief to the Industry.

In summation, the introduction of the NATAR by the government only solves the issue of the assessee on the surface. However, the real issue of having an efficacious appellate remedy against the orders of the AAR still eludes the taxpayers.

Ease Your GST Filing & Invoice with XaTTaX GST Software

Source: Business-Today.
Inter-state office services to come under GST net

Inter-state office services to come under GST net

The government is set to make it clear that services provided by an office of an organization in one state to another office in another state will face goods and services tax, or GST.

A circular to this effect, endorsed by the GST Council, will be issued soon, a government official told ET.

This is in line with the view taken by Karnataka Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) that in-house functions such as human resources and payrolls if carried out from a center in one state for offices in other states, will face GST, for which invoice will have to be issued.

The circular will also lay down that emolument offered to service personnel will have to be included under this, the official said. Companies can claim an input tax credit for this, but for certain exempt sectors such as power, healthcare, liquor, and education, it will become a cost as a credit of tax charged would not be available, the person said. GST

The circular follows representations from the industry, seeking clarification on the taxability of activities performed by an office of an organization in one state to the office of the same organization in another state, regarded as distinct persons under the GST law and treated as supply of services between distinct persons.

The law committee under the GST Council has sought to clarify via the circular the issues dealing with distribution of input tax credit in respect of input services provided by the head office, but attributable to head office or various branch offices, treatment of expenses incurred by the head office on the procurement, distribution and management of common input services, treatment of services provided by head office such as common administration or common IT maintenance to its branch officers and their valuation.

The circular, which is in the form of frequently asked questions, will lay down as to how the input tax credit will be distributed between head office and branch officers as also that value of service will be equal to employee cost and establishment cost of supplying that service, said the official cited earlier.

Expenses will need to be apportioned using valuation principles laid down under the GST Law and generally accepted accounting principles.

Experts said the government needs to treat employee of a company as an employee of a single company irrespective of their location.

“It would be good if the government also looks at the intent behind the transactions and adopts a pragmatic approach to recognize that an employee is an employee of an organization as a whole and not of any particular location, hence there may not need to cross charge the salary costs between head office and branch office transactions,” said Harpreet Singh, partner at KPMG in India.

Experts also said the issue of cross charge is leading to a lot of confusion on the ground and avoidable paperwork.

“In most cases, it’s a revenue neutral exercise except where the output is either exempt or not within GST, where GST charged becomes a cost,” said Pratik Jain, national leader, indirect taxes at PwC.

The government should ideally make it optional where input tax is getting blocked in a particular state, Jain said, adding that employee salary should not be included as an employee is of an organization and not of a particular state or branch.

Case file 
The ambiguity over whether central administrative services provided by employees located at one location would tantamount to services being provided one location to another under the GST regime has led to litigations.

AAR, in a case pertaining to Columbia Asia Hospitals, had said such activities would qualify as a service provided by head office to other locations and hence companies are required to be cross charged and levy GST on the same. The matter has now been admitted in the Karnataka High Court and notice has been issued to the government.

XaTTaX – World Class Automated eSolution for Return filing and e-Waybill

Source: Economic-Times.
Failure to include Place of Supply and State’s Name in GST Invoice for Inter-State Supply would attract Penalty: CBIC

Failure to include Place of Supply and State’s Name in GST Invoice for Inter-State Supply would attract Penalty: CBIC

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) has clarified that in case of failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement of inserting place of supply and the name of the State in the invoices for inter-State supply would attract penalty under the GST law.

A circular issued by the Board last day said that after the introduction of GST, which is a destination-based consumption tax, it is essential to ensure that the tax paid by a registered person accrues to the State in which the consumption of goods or services or both takes place. In case of inter-State supply of goods or services or both, this is ensured by capturing the details of the place of supply along with the name of the State in the tax invoice.

“It is, therefore, instructed that all registered persons making the supply of goods or services or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall specify the place of supply along with the name of the State in the tax invoice. The provisions of sections 10 and 12 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 may be referred to in order to determine the place of supply in case of supply of goods and services respectively. Contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder attracts penal action under the provisions of sections 122 or 125 of the CGST Act,” the Board said.

To Read the full text of the circular CLICK HERE

Ease Your GST Filing & Invoice with XaTTaX GST Software


Source: Tax Scan.
GSTN Alert: Two New Features added in the Portal

GSTN Alert: Two New Features added in the Portal

The Goods and Services Tax Network ( GSTN ) has updated two new features in the official website including System Generated Acknowledgement of Application of Appeal and the Population of Data from EWB System into Form GSTR-1.

At the time of generating E-Way Bill for outward supply, taxpayers enter the details of outward supplies such as invoice number, Date, Value Tax etc.

With the new functionality added in the portal, the taxpayers can now easily import these details of outward supply invoices, as indicated in the e-way bill at the time of preparation of Form GSTR-1, by clicking the import ‘EWB Data’ button on the GST Portal in following tiles, (i) B2B Invoices (ii) B2C Large Invoices (iii) HSN-wise summary of Outward supplies.

The other new functionality enabled in the portal is an acknowledgment of Application of Appeal.

Under the GST Law, taxpayers shall submit an application of appeal before the first appellate authority and the authority must issue an acknowledgment to the taxpayer within the prescribed time. From now, if such an acknowledgment is not issued, then a system generated final acknowledgment shall be issued to the appellant with a remark “subject to validation of certified copies.”

Ease Your GST Retrun Filing & Invoice with XaTTaX- GST Software

Source: Tax Scan.
One lakh students to be trained in GST accountancy, govt to fund fees

One lakh students to be trained in GST accountancy, govt to fund fees

The Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICAI) would provide training to about one lakh students on the soon-to-be-launched GST Accountants course, a senior official said Thursday.

The government is coming out with Goods and Services Tax (GST) Accountants course and plans to train about 1 lakh GST Accountants over the next one to one-and-half year.

The course fees would be fully funded by the Government of India, ICAI president Amit Anand Apte told reporters here.

The objective of the programme is to ensure that compliance as far GST is concerned increases especially in the SMEs sector, he said adding the intention was to serve the sector because there was a gap between availability of trained resources and requirements.

“GST Accountants programme will be launched very soon.. about 1 lakh accountants will be trained specifically on GST compliances.

We are working out the modalities with theMinistry of Corporate Affairs and the course would be tentatively launched by February end,” Apte said.

The biggest challenge before the government is that most of the SMEs are not able to comply with the provisions of the (GST) law because they are not equipped enough with right kind of trained accountants who can adhere to the various GST provisions, he said.

The concept is to train 1 lakh accountants across the country who will be able to serve the SMEs sector.

Once these accountants are trained they will be able to serve all the SMEs and the compliance from the field would also improve substantially, Apte said adding this proposal was discussed with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and then taken up with NITI Aayog which has approved it.

The course content is almost ready and it would be a 50-hours classroom training.

Besides, there would be a 10-hour practical training wherein the government would impart live training in the form of computerized filing of the returns in various GST offices across the country, he said.

Those from commerce stream could undergo this course and an entrance exam would be conducted by ICAI shortly and those candidates who qualify the exams would be eligible to undertake this GST Accountants course, he said.

The course would be conducted through ICAI’s 98 chapters and about 300 extension centers across the country, he added.

XaTTaX – World Class Automated eSolution for Return filing and e-Waybill

Source: Business standard.