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 143 on amended Section 16, 34 & 37 of the CGST Act, 2017

GST update No 143 on amended Section 16, 34 & 37 of the CGST Act, 2017
Several amendments have been proposed in the GST Law in the Finance Bill which is a part of Union Budget announced for 2022-23. Amendments have been made in the provisions regarding filing of returns, availment of input tax credit, GST refunds etc. Some of these amendments are in favour of taxpayers while some are revenue friendly. The present update seeks to discuss the changes made in Section 16, Section 34 and Section 37 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 16 (2) is amended wherein a new clause (ba) is inserted. The said clause is related to availment of ITC with respect to a supply can be availed only if it is not restricted in the details communicated to the taxpayer under Section 38. According to this provision, the ITC with respect to an invoice is available only if the same is reflected in auto-generated statement such as GSTR-2B and is not ineligible for availment. For example- In case of accommodation services availed by a supplier in hotel situated outside State, the CGST and SGST of another State is being levied, which cannot be availed by the recipient. Consequently, it is provided that mere reflection of input tax credit in GSTR-2B would not suffice but the eligibility of credit is also to be taken care of. Furthermore, Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 is also amended. This is done so that an extended time period can be allowed for availment of input tax credit by a registered person in respect of any invoice pertaining to the Financial Year upto 30th November of the following Financial Year. According to the present provision, the time limit for availing ITC is due date of furnishing return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. The proposed amendment seeks to extend the due date of availment of ITC as 30th November of subsequent year for all the assessees. Through introduction of this amendment, the Government seeks to bring clarity and avoid unwanted litigations as regards the time limit for availment of input tax credit. This is for the reason that the time limit for taking credit is linked to due date of filing return which has been extended numerous times, earlier on account of initial stages of GST implementation and thereafter due to outbreak of pandemic which results in unwarranted disputes. Moreover, the issue was litigated even on the grounds that GSTR-3B is not a return for the purpose of computing time limit which was upheld by hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AAP & Co. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. However, the Apex Court has recently, reversed the judgment by concluding that GSTR-3B is return under section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The time limit is now fixed in absolute terms to bring clarity into the minds of the assessee as regards availment of input tax credit. It is pertinent to mention that further amendment is proposed under section 34(2) of CGST Act, 2017 wherein time limit for issuance of credit note has also been changed on similar lines. Now as per the new time limit, credit note can be issued upto 30th November of following financial year in respect of supplies made. Similarly, Section 37 of CGST Act, 2017 also stands amended to specify the time limit for rectification of errors in respect of details of outward supplies upto 30th November of subsequent financial year. The above changes indicate the initiatives taken by the government towards the motto of “easy and simple tax” as the complexities in the provisions have been simplified by making reference of fixed date of availment of credit, fixed time limit for issuance of credit note and making rectification of errors rather than using relative term of due date of filing the return for the September month following the financial year. This amendment also seeks to leave no room for doubt as regards claiming any benefit by the assessee on technical grounds such as GSTR-3B not to be considered as return under section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Although, the issue has been settled by the Apex Court in favour of the department that GSTR-3B is a return under section 39, the government appears to be extra cautious to avoid any unwarranted litigation in future.
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