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. 150/2019-20 Input tax credit accumulated up to July 31, 2018 will not lapse

GST UPDATE NO. 150/2019-20 Input tax credit accumulated up to July 31, 2018 will not lapse
Honorable Gujarat High Court in a landmark judgment of Shabnam Petrofills Pvt Ltd which will benefit entire Textile Weaving Industry  of India has struck down the second clause of Notification No 20/2018 due to which now the Weavers Are Not Required To Lapse ITC.
This can be seen as a major relief for the textile sector, the Gujarat High Court has made it clear that input tax credit accumulated up to July 31, 2018 will not lapse. This will facilitate refund of the credit for that period and thus end the working capital woes for fabric manufacturers.

The core of the issue is the inverted duty structure which results in a situation when there is a higher duty on raw material/input and higher duty on finished product. In such a situation, technically speaking, refund is to be provided. In case of the textile sector, man-made fabric attracts GST at the rate of 5 per cent while inputs for that attract levy at the rate of 12 per cent.

As power loom and man-made fabric manufacturers were facing problems, CBIC issued a circular saying that refund will be possible from August 2018 but accumulated ITC till July 2018 will lapse. Aggrieved by this, various companies and association of fabric weavers (power looms) filed petitions in the Gujarat High Court.

Strong reliance has been placed upon by the appellants on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karnataka Ltd, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), wherein it is held that when credit has been validly taken, its benefit is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time. The credit is indefeasible.

Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (106) E.L.T. 3(S.C.), for the proposition that a right accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right would continue until the facility thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed.
Further reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Limited – 2014 (306) E.L.T. 551 (Guj.).

The impugned Notification dated July 26, 2018 bearing No.20/2018 and Circular dated August 24, 2018 bearing Circular No.56/30/2018-GST to the extent it provides that the input tax credit lying unutilized in balance, after payment of tax for and up to the month of July 2018, on the inward supplies received up to the 31st day of July 2018, shall lapse, are hereby quashed and set aside and are hereby declared as ultra vires and beyond the scope of section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, as section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act does not empower to issue such notifications and consequently, it is held that the petitioners and members of the petitioners are entitled for the credit and it be granted to them.

It is a well settled principle that the delegated legislation has to be in conformity with the provisions of the parent statute. By prescribing for lapsing of ITC, the Notification No. 05/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended by Notification No.20/2018-C.T. (Rate) dated 07.2018, has exceeded the power delegated under Section 54(3) (ii) of the CGST Act

Earlier, the Revenue Department argued that GST reduction on manmade fiber yarn to 12 from 18 per cent gave significant relief to the sector and reduced the accumulation of ITC. As there were requests for relaxing conditions related with refund of accumulated credit, the GST Council agreed to remove the condition, however with the prospective effect.

The Council then decided that the input tax credit lying in balance on the date of the notification implementing the new provision will lapse. This lapse of accumulated ITC was in the spirit of earlier rate structure which envisaged that refund of accumulated credit was not to be allowed and accordingly circular was issued.

However, the Court did not agree with the contentions and said that no inherent power can be inferred from the provision of GST Law empowering the Centre to provide for the lapsing of the unutilized ITC accumulated on account of inverted rate structures. The petitioners have a vested right to unutilized ITC accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on the output supplies.
The readers of our update will be remembering that we have already opined in our update at the time of this notification that credit earned cannot be lapsed. We have already fight this matter for textile processor in Excise regime when compounded levy was introduced and successfully won the case in case of Shankeshwar Fabrics. Following the same analogy, this notification has also been quashed. But the department is still asking for reversal and issuing show cause notice in case refund is claimed by textile processors without reversal. The authors of this update have come across such letters from the department. But High Court decision (Even of other state, when there is contradictory verdict of any other High Court is not available) is binding on all lower formation of department and they cannot take stand against the same.

This is solely for the educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on Twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

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