← All case studies
Wholesale Distribution

Reconciling GST and Income Tax Across Years

A wholesale distributor in Kolkata discovered material mismatches between its GST returns, income tax filings, and books of account built up over several years. The inconsistencies raised the risk of notices and demands, and made the accounts unreliable for both financing and decision-making.

SECTOR
Wholesale Distribution
The challenge

A clear-eyed look at where they stood.

A wholesale distributor in Kolkata came to CapEasy with a problem that had been building quietly for years: its GST returns, its income tax filings, and its own books of account no longer told the same story. Turnover reported to the GST department did not line up with turnover reported to the income tax department, and neither matched what the books showed. None of this had been caught in a single year. It had accumulated, filing after filing, until the gap between the three records was too wide to explain away as rounding or timing.

This kind of drift is common in growing distribution businesses precisely because GST and income tax use different reporting logic. GST tracks supply-wise turnover across GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, credit availed and reversed, and reconciliations against GSTR-2B. Income tax works off the profit and loss account and Form 26AS. When the underlying books are not reconciled to both on a running basis, small differences in how a credit note, a debit note, or an inter-state stock transfer gets recorded can widen into a mismatch that a departmental scrutiny would flag immediately.

For this distributor, the risk was not hypothetical. Multi-year mismatches of this kind routinely trigger notices and demands, and until they are resolved, the underlying accounts are not something a bank, an investor, or the promoters themselves can fully rely on for decisions.

What we did

CapEasy started by carrying out a multi-year reconciliation that ran across all three records at once, GST returns, income tax filings, and the books of account, rather than treating each as a separate compliance exercise. The point was to find where the numbers actually diverged, not to patch each filing in isolation.

That meant tracing turnover, input tax credit, and tax positions period by period and matching them against what the books recorded for the same period. Wherever a return had captured a transaction differently from the books, or a credit position did not match what was actually available, we traced it back to its source rather than adjusting the current period and moving on.

Where the review showed a return needed correction, we made the correction through the appropriate mechanism rather than leaving the error live in the filing history. Turnover, credit, and tax positions across GST, income tax, and the books were then brought into one consistent picture, so the three records said the same thing about the same transactions.

Because a business carrying multi-year discrepancies has to be ready to explain them if the department asks, we documented every correction and the reasoning behind it. The working papers were built to stand up to a future departmental review, beyond simply closing out the immediate mismatch.

The outcome

The company’s GST, income tax, and book positions were reconciled and brought into alignment, reducing its exposure to notices and giving management numbers it could actually rely on for financing conversations and internal decisions. Outcomes on any future departmental query still rest with the tax authorities; what changed here is that the underlying records now support a consistent, defensible answer rather than three conflicting ones.

Beyond the immediate cleanup, a recurring reconciliation discipline was put in place, so GST, income tax, and the books stay aligned on an ongoing basis rather than drifting apart again over the next few filing cycles.

What made it work

Reconciling three record sets after several years of drift only works if the review starts from source documents rather than the filings themselves, since the filings are exactly what is in question. Working transaction by transaction, and correcting returns rather than only adjusting the current period, is what let the final position hold up as a single consistent picture instead of another set of numbers to reconcile later.

Turning that into a recurring discipline, rather than a one-time fix, is what keeps a multi-year mismatch from being able to rebuild itself.

This describes work CapEasy delivered in a real engagement; the client’s name is withheld to protect their confidentiality. Outcomes vary by company, sector and stage; nothing here is a promise of a similar result. CapEasy is a private consultancy and is not affiliated with any government authority.

← Back to all case studies

Book a free consultation.

An honest assessment of where you are and what comes next — no cost, no pressure, no inflated promises.