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 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