NewKerala.com

Key Points

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance has received a GST tax demand order from Mumbai tax authorities challenging their service tax credit transition in 2017. The order involves a total demand of Rs 3.67 crore, including Rs 1.83 crore in GST liability and an equivalent penalty. The company maintains its position and plans to file an appeal against the order. This dispute highlights the complexities of tax credit transitions during the GST implementation.

Key Points: ICICI Prudential Life Faces Rs 3.67 Crore GST Tax Dispute

  • ICICI Prudential receives GST tax demand order from Mumbai Commissioner
  • Company disputes Rs 3.67 crore service tax credit claim
  • Total demand includes Rs 1.83 crore liability and equal penalty
  • Insurance firm plans to challenge the order
2 min read

ICICI Prudential Life gets Rs 3.67 crore GST demand order

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance challenges GST demand order involving service tax credit transition from 2017-18 financial year

"The company shall file an appeal against the said order - ICICI Prudential Life Regulatory Filing"

Mumbai, April 18

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance on Friday said that it has received an order from the GST Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, upholding a tax demand of around Rs 3.67 crore.

The order relates to a dispute over service tax credit that the company had carried forward when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system was introduced in 2017.

"The company has received an order from the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, on April 17, upholding the tax demand," the company said in a regulatory filing.

Earlier, on July 2, 2024, the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) department in Mumbai passed an order denying part of the service tax credit that the company had transitioned into the GST framework during the 2017-18 financial year.

Following this, ICICI Prudential had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

"We refer to our letter dated July 2, 2024, with respect to the order under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) passed by Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Mumbai for FY2018. Subsequently, the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)," it added in its filing.

"In this regard, please be informed that the Company has received an order from Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, on April 17, 2025, at 2.22 p.m., upholding the tax demand," the company's exchange filing stated.

The total demand includes a GST liability of over Rs 1.83 crore, along with an equal amount imposed as a penalty.

The company said: "We further state and declare that the information and details provided in Annexure A, in compliance with Regulation 30(13) of the SEBI Listing Regulations, are true, correct, and complete to the best of our knowledge and belief."

ICICI Prudential Life said it plans to challenge the order. "The company shall file an appeal against the said order before appropriate authority," it added.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rahul K.
Interesting to see how these GST transition issues are still coming up after so many years. Companies must have thought they had everything sorted by now. Hope ICICI Prudential gets a fair resolution.
P
Priya M.
3.67 crore seems like a huge amount! 😳 But I guess for big insurance companies, this might just be a small operational cost. Still, good they're challenging it if they believe they're right.
S
Sanjay T.
The GST implementation was messy from day one. Not surprised companies are still dealing with legacy issues. Government should provide more clarity on these transitional matters.
A
Anjali R.
I work in finance and these service tax credit disputes are more common than people think. The rules weren't very clear during GST rollout. Both sides probably have valid points here.
V
Vikram S.
While I understand companies need to protect their interests, I hope ICICI Prudential pays up if they're actually in the wrong. These tax disputes delay much-needed government revenue.
N
Neha P.
The penalty being equal to the tax demand seems harsh though! 100% penalty? Is that standard practice? 🤔 Would love to hear from any tax experts here.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50