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 120 on refund of service tax paid under RCM in GST regime

GST Update No 120 on refund of service tax paid under RCM in GST regime

The government had promised that the transition into GST regime would be smooth and easy whereas the said promise has been broken several times, be it filing of transitional return by allowing carrying forward of the credit of erstwhile regime or grant of cash refund in various situations post implementation of GST. The current update is prepared on the decision given in the case of M/S. CIRCOR FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. V/S THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE which aims at discussing whether refund of service tax paid on RCM basis is allowed under GST regime.

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of valves and were holding registration under Central Excise Laws during the pre-GST regime. They entered into transactions during January 2017 to June 2017 involving import of software for which service tax was liable to be paid under reverse charge mechanism. They paid the service tax belatedly in March 2019. The said tax was for the services received by them from the foreign service provider for the period January 2017 to June 2017 and the tax was paid under reverse charge mechanism. In terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as it stood during the relevant period, the appellants were eligible to avail credit of the service tax paid by them. After introduction of GST with effect from 1.7.2017, as appellants could not avail CENVAT credit, they filed an application for refund of the amount of which they are eligible for credit. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority stating that the tax has been voluntarily paid and that no credit is eligible in the GST regime. On appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the said view was upheld. Hence the appellants preferred appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant contended that the document to claim credit of tax paid under reverse charge mechanism was provided under rule 9 (1) (e) of CCR 2004 which says that challan evidencing payment of service tax by the service recipient is the prescribed document. The appellant has paid the service tax vide challan dated 16.03.2019 after the introduction of GST but they could not avail credit for the reason that cenvat account ceased to exist.

However, as per section 174 (2)(c) of the CGST Act, the right of credit is protected even though provisions for payment of Central Excise / Service Tax has been repealed. Furthermore, as per Section 142 (3) of the GST Act, every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of Cenvat Credit shall be disposed of according to the provisions of existing law and any amount accruing shall be paid in cash.
The Tribunal held that when the liability of tax has been accepted by the department, they cannot reject the claim of refund of credit on the same. The hon’ble CESTAT placed relied on the decision given in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS UOI wherein it has been held that transitional credit being a vested right, it cannot be taken away on procedural or technical grounds. In various decisions, it has been held that substantive right of credit cannot be denied on account of procedural grounds.
In the present case, there is no allegation that the credit is not eligible to the appellant. It is merely stated that tax has been paid voluntarily and therefore credit is not available under the GST regime. Though credit is not available as Input Tax Credit under GST law, the credit under the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules is eligible to the appellant. Such credit has to be processed under Section 142 (3) of GST Act, 2017 and refunded in cash to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

The above decision is very beneficial to the assessee in situations wherein they are unable to claim cenvat credit post implementation of GST. In this context, reference may be made to the recent decision pronounced by the hon’ble Delhi CESTAT in the case of FLEXI CAPS AND POLYMERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE-INDORE [2021 (9) TMI 917-CESTAT NEW-DELHI] that has allowed refund of CVD and SAD paid on default in export obligation with respect to imports made under advance license in the GST regime for which availment of credit was not possible. It is appreciable that favourable decisions are being rendered to enable assessees to claim refund of cenvat credit which cannot be availed post implementation of GST.

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