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

COMPLIANCE ON CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER REVISED GST LAW

COMPLIANCE ON CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER REVISED GST LAW

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION

COMPLIANCE ON CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER REVISED GST LAW:-

At present, the manufacturers/dealers registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 have the option to surrender their registration if they intend to close their operations but there is no liability or legal compliance to be discharged on cancellation of the registration. However, the situation is not same in the proposed GST regime as the assessee is required to discharge tax and is also required to file final return under section 40 of the Revised GST Law.

According to section 26(7) of the Revised GST Law, every registered taxable person whose registration is cancelled shall pay an amount equivalent to credit of input tax credit held in stock of goods (including inputs, semi-finished goods and finished goods) immediately preceding the date of cancellation or the output tax payable on such goods whichever is higher. Moreover, the assessee will also be required to pay an amount equal to input tax credit taken on capital goods reduced by prescribed percentage points or tax on transaction value, whichever is higher. Apart from making the payment of tax, the assessee is also required to file final return within three months from the date of cancellation or date of cancellation order, whichever is later.

It is also worth noting that if the draft format of Final Return released in GSTR-10 is observed, it is found that payment of amount as discussed above is required to be made for inputs as such, inputs contained in semi-finished goods, inputs contained in finished goods, capital goods and even input services. The assessee can compute the value of inputs contained in the stock of goods as on the date of cancellation but it is extremely difficult to compute the input tax credit of input services contained in the stock of goods. Moreover, there might be dispute as regards whether reversal of credit of input services directly related to the stock of goods is required like transportation services for bringing inputs in the premises or whether input service credit indirectly pertaining to the stock of goods such as telephone services, security services etc. is also required to be reversed. Furthermore, there will be immense litigation as regards the quantum of input tax credit to be reversed in case of input services. At present, there is no such provision as there is no requirement to pay any amount on stock of goods held on the date of surrender of registration. The incorporation of above provision will lead to more litigation, even on exit by the assessees. It is also submitted that determination of transaction value may also be a point of dispute as assessee may treat the value of goods held in stock as of lower value but the revenue department may argue that the said goods will fetch the same value as before. This will make the exit procedure also cumbersome for the assessees.

If the old draft of GST law is pursued, it is found that Schedule-I of the Old GST Law prescribed matters to be treated as supply without consideration which also mentioned the assets retained after deregistration which meant that assets on which no credit was taken were also treated as supply on deregistration. Not only this, permanent transfer or disposal of business assets was also considered as supply without consideration so as to levy tax irrespective of fact whether input tax credit was availed on such assets or not. However, this provision has been dispensed with in the revised GST law and now, only permanent transfer or disposal of business assets where input tax credit has been availed has been mentioned in Schedule-I thereby meaning that tax would be leviable by treating such assets as supply without consideration only if input tax credit has been availed. This provision is welcomed and appreciated by the assessees.

 

Visit us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at

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