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 No 112 ON CHANGES EFFECTIVE FROM 01.01.2022 IN CGST ACT, 2017

GST UPDATE No 112 ON CHANGES EFFECTIVE FROM 01.01.2022 IN CGST ACT, 2017
Since introduction of GST, there had been many twists and turns in the Act. The Government is taking all necessary steps to amend the provisions of law for better compliances. Recently, CBIC has notified the applicability of the provisions proposed in the Finance Act, 2021 as effective from 01.01.2022. The CBIC has issued Notification No. 39/2021-Central Tax dated 21.12.2021 for notifying the date of implementation of Sections 108, 109 and 113 to 122 of Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st January, 2022 which is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The important amended provisions that are made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2022 are discussed as follows: 1. Section 108 of Finance Act: A retrospective amendment is introduced in Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 wherein entry no (aa) is proposed to be inserted which says that the activities or transactions provided by a person other than individual to its members for any valuable consideration shall be treated as supply. An explanation is added clarifying that members and the association shall be treated as different persons. Simultaneously, entry no 7 in Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017, is omitted retrospectively. The amendment is inserted on account of judicial pronouncements holding that no tax can be levied on the transactions undertaken between the club and its members owing to the principle of mutuality. This entry seeks to nullify the effect of the said decisions and confirms that activities provided by any person other than individual to its members for any valuable consideration will be considered as supply. 2. Section 109 of Finance Act: Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the conditions to be satisfied by an assessee for availing the input tax credit. Further, as per Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, the assessee shall be eligible to take the provisional tax credit (without invoices being uploaded by the supplier in GSTR-1) in the GSTR-3B to the extent of 5% of eligible ITC reflected in the GSTR-2B. As of now, there was no legal statutory provision backing the provision restricting credit availment to the extent of 5% in the CGST Act, 2017. The government appears to have realised the lacunae in the law and has inserted section 16(2)(aa) of CGST Act, 2017 wherein it is stated that the assessee can claim credit only if the details of invoices or debit notes has been furnished by the supplier as outward supply and the details are communicated to the recipient in the manner as specified under Section 37 of CGST Act. This shall result in loss to the assessee because earlier assessee was able to avail 5% ITC on provisional basis but henceforth, ITC will be available only when invoice is furnished by supplier in GSTR-1. 3. Section 113 and 114 of Finance Act: As per section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, earlier, where proceedings against main person were concluded, proceedings against all other persons deemed to be concluded u/s 122, 125, 129 and 130 of CGST Act, 2017. However, the section 74 has been amended to deny the benefit of conclusion of proceedings to co-notice in cases where the provisions of Section 129 or 130 gets attracted. Furthermore, in Section 75 of CGST Act, 2017, an explanation has been inserted that the “self-assessed tax” shall include tax payable in respect of outward supplies furnished u/s 37 (GSTR-1) but not included in the return filed u/s 39 (GSTR-3B) of CGST Act, 2017. 4. Section 116 of Finance Act: Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 deals with pre-deposit to be deposited with the Government in case the person is aggrieved by any decision or order passed under GST Act, 2017. In normal cases, the appellant is required to pre-deposit 10% of disputed tax liability in first appeal. However, amendment has been made to prescribe a mandatory predeposit of 25% of penalty in cases of detention and seizure of goods in transit. 5. Section 117 of Finance Act: Section 129 deals with detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyance in transit. There are numerous amendments in this Section. The provision contains sub clauses wherein penalty is segregated on the basis of who comes forward to release the goods detained. In clause (a) where the owner comes forward, in taxable goods, penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable and in exempted goods, penalty of 200% of value of goods or twentyfive thousand rupees, whichever is less shall be applicable. In clause (b), where owner does not come forward, penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods or 200% of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, while in case of exempted goods, 50% of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less shall be applicable. Sub-section (3) has been substituted which says that the officer shall issue a notice within 7 days specifying the penalty and pass an order for payment of penalty within 7 days from date of service of notice. A proviso to sub-section (3) is clarified wherein the conveyance shall be released on payment of penalty as specified by the transporter or Rs. 1 lakh whichever is less. Certain other amendments are also notified which shall stand applicable from 01.01.2022. We have now completed 4 years after implementation of GST law but yet the process of refining the law is continued. The level of complexities is increasing with every passing day. It is hoped that the amendment made in section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 requiring reflection of invoices by supplier in GSTR-1 for availment of credit by the recipient is re-visited as it leads to imposition of condition which is impossible to be complied by the recipient and tantamount to punishing recipient for the default of supplier.
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