Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update - 29.12.2016 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS-PART-VIII

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION BY CA PRADEEP JAIN
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS-PART-VIII
Section 175- Inputs removed for job work and returned on or after the appointed day
 
This section intends to enable the receipt of goods sent on job work before the appointed day but received back after the appointed day. Like the previous sections the time limit has been kept at 6 months from the appointed date to receive back such goods without payment of duty. The provision reads as follows:
Where any inputs received in a factory had been removed as such or removed after being partially processed to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose in accordance with the provisions of earlier law prior to the appointed day and such inputs, are returned to the said factory on or after the appointed day, no tax shall be payable if such inputs , after completion of the job work or otherwise, are returned to the said factory within six months from the appointed day.
 
The bold marked text is the only addition done in this para in comparison to old draft GST law. This is done so to clarify that the goods can be returned even without doing any job work. In absence of this provision, it could have been interoperated that only job worked goods can be returned back and if the inputs are returned as such without job work, then tax may become payable.
Apart from the above, 3 provisos from the old draft have been replaced to insert another proviso. The old provisos read as follows:
 
Provided further that tax shall be payable by the job worker if such inputs are liable to tax under this Act, and are returned after a period of six months or the extended period, as the case may be, from the appointed day:
 
Provided also that tax shall be payable by the manufacturer if such inputs are liable to tax under this Act, and are not returned within a period of six months or the extended period , as the case may be, from the appointed day.
 
This proviso lead to confusion that GST will be payable by job worker or manufacturer if goods are not returned in the stipulated time period. The literal meaning of this provision was that  the manufacture shall be liable to tax if goods are not returned within six months and if the goods are returned after the period of 6 months then the job worker will be liable to pay tax. On completion of exact 6 months, goods are not returned then manufacturer has to pay the duty. Now after 6 month, the job worker has to return the goods then he has to pay GST once again. Now, GST is paid twice on same goods. firstly by principal supplier and then by job worker. Even this was also not clear from these provision in old GST law whether the credit will be available to job worker of the GST paid by principal supplier.
Even we see the provision in current Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 then manufacturer has to reverse the cenvat credit taken on inputs and when the goods are returned after 180 days then credit is to be taken once again. These are very good provision.
 The new proviso substituted reads as follows:
PROVIDED FURTHER that if such inputs are not returned within a period of six months or the extended period , as the case may be, from the appointed day the input tax credit shall be liable to be recovered in terms of section 184.
 
Thus now in event of non return of goods within the stipulated time, section 184 will come into play for the recovery of tax. The section reads as follows:
Where in pursuance of an assessment or adjudication proceedings instituted, whether before, on or after the appointed day, under the earlier law, any amount of tax, interest, fine or penalty becomes recoverable from the taxable person after the appointed day, the same shall be recovered as an arrear of tax under this Act and the amount so recovered shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act.
 
Thus to conclude the tax on late returned goods will be deemed as a arrear of tax under this act and subsequently no input tax credit will be admissible under this act. Thus, if the inputs are not returned within 6 months then credit will be lapsed.
 
Hence it is advised to job worker that he should return the goods within 6 months of appointed day whether job work is done or not.
 
 
You may visit us at  www.capradeepjain.com
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com