Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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