Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 139 ITC available as common pool for utilization

GST Update No 139 ITC available as common pool for utilization
The major driving force of implementing GST was to allow seamless flow of input tax credit in the transaction chain and enable its effective utilization thereby removing the cascading effect of taxes. The provisions formulated with respect to availment, and utilisation of Input Tax Credit is litmus test for Government’s commitment to ensure that there is no disruption in the credit chain. However, at times, interpretation adopted by AARs distort the intention and create confusion. Recently, Gujarat AAR in the case of M/S. ARISTO BULLION PVT. LTD. held that the taxpayer can utilize ITC only if there is direct nexus between inputs and outputs which is totally against the basic principle of credit facility extended to the assessees. This decision was further challenged before the Gujarat AAAR and recently decision has been pronounced by AAAR. The outcome and the reasoning adopted by the AAAR is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The appellant in engaged in manufacturing as well as trading of Gold and Silver Bullion including coins etc. They intend to utilize ITC available on purchase or import of Gold & Silver Dore against payment of GST on outward supply of trading of castor oil seeds However, it was concluded by AAR that since as per Section 16, assessee shall be entitled to take input tax on supply of goods and services which are intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business and since no one to one correlation exists between the two supplies, appellant shall not be entitled to utilize ITC. The appellant contended before AAAR that raw materials or trading material procured in form of Gold & Silver Dore for further supply will qualify in the definition of “goods”, being movable property. Hence, it amounts to “input tax” as per Section 16(1) of CGST Act, 2017. As per Rule 86 of CGST Rules 2017, there is no provision in rules which restricts the utilization of electronic credit ledger towards output tax in respect of taxable supply. Thus, credit ledger can be utilized to make payment of output tax liability of other business verticals as well. Further, as per Section 49(2) & (4), credit ledger does not contain any identification for utilization of Input Tax Credit. The inputs are available as a common pool which can be utilized to discharge output tax liability. The appellant quoted the illustration of nationally renowned organizations such as “D mart”, “Big Bazar” etc. which provide a diverse range of products and avails ITC as per Section 16. Once the condition of availment of credit is fulfilled as per Section 16, it transpires to be deposited in a common pool of credits which can be subsequently utilized against output tax liability. Reliance was placed on the similar issues which came across Courts in Pre-GST regime. The courts held that there is no requirement to prove existence of direct nexus between inputs and output. Reliance was placed on decisions rendered in the case of Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Nitin Spinners Ltd. v. CCE, Entraco Power Systems (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, CCE v. Graphite India Ltd, Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, and CCE, Coimbatore v. Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. The AAAR held that section 17(5) does not impose any restriction on availing ITC on gold bars. The AAAR held that even if logic of AAR is adopted, taxpayers who are selling large number of commodities would require to maintain input tax credit accounts in respect of each commodity which is impossible and is nowhere prescribed in the law. It was held that once the taxpayer validly takes ITC on inputs, that ITC merges into common portal which is not maintained commodity wise. Further, it was held that Section 16(5) does not mandate assessee to prove one to one correlation between inputs and output. It only prescribes that inward supply should be used in the course or furtherance of business. Since, it is undisputed fact that the inward supply of Gold and Silver Dore bars are used in the course of business of the appellant, input tax is validly taken and it can be utilized against payment of outward taxable or zero rated supply. Therefore, it was concluded that Input Tax Credit balance available in its Electronic Credit Ledger which has been legitimately earned on the inputs can be utilized for payment of outward supply of castor oil seeds. The GST law has subsumed various indirect taxation law but it appears that the points of dispute raised in the erstwhile tax regime are also carried forward in the new regime. The issue regarding proving one-to-one correlation of inputs used for the purpose of outward supplies was also litigated in earlier laws but the matter was settled in favour of the assessee that no nexus is required to be established for inputs and output for the purpose of utilisation of credit by numerous decisions rendered by CESTAT. It is appreciated that similar view was taken by AAAR and the order passed by the AAR was rectified by reversing the same.
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