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 155 on Circular regarding import of goods at concessional rate of duty

GST Update No 155 on Circular regarding import of goods at concessional rate of duty
With the advent and outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic in various parts of countries, concept of digitalization and complete automation has increased to a great extent. The Government is kind enough to issue circulars in this regard simplifying the procedures and providing relief to trade and industry. Recently, clarification was released by the CBIC vide Circular No 04/2022- Customs dated 27.02.2022 which talks about simple and contact less procedure on import of goods at concessional rate of duty (IGCR) Rules 2017 which are effective from 01.03.2022. The discussion of the circular is subject matter of our present update. The issues touched upon by the circular are discussed as follows:- 1) Issuance of Bond: First of all, in current offline system, the importer who intends to import at concessional rate of custom duty shall have to furnish bond with bank guarantee to the department. Now also, he has to follow the same procedure and has to follow the same procedure. As per circular, one-time continuity Bond shall be furnished in Part-B of IGCR-1 by the importer and a physical copy of the same along with bank guarantee is to be furnished to Custom officer. The bond is to be on the stamp paper as well as hard copy of the bank guarantee is essential, hence this bond and bank guarantee is to be submitted online. The officer shall then upon satisfied will accept the request on Customs Automated System and a bond number will then be generated. Moreover, additional bonds can also be executed and bank guarantee can be furnished. However, portal is new and teething problems will be there. We have seen the same in GST era also. Hence, time should be given to understand and start working on the portal. Meanwhile, both the existing offline system and updated online system should be operated simultaneously so that the importers as well as department does not face the problems. Furthermore, for the already operating assessee, all the bonds and bank guarantees should be feed by officers on the portal before 13.03.2022. But it seems to be difficult task as only one officer in the complete Commissionerate is appointed for this purpose. Earlier every jurisdictional division office was looking after this work. But now only one officer is Commissionerate will do this work. Calling and feeding of this information will be difficult task. Filing of online application: - One-time prior intimation on the common portal in Form IGCR-1 is to be filed by the importer. In earlier regime, consignment wise intimation was being filed with the jurisdictional officer but now only one time basis information is required to be filed. But there was provision of intimation only but now the acceptance of this is to be taken. It is not clear whether this acceptance will come from officer or the common portal automatically? But this permission from officer will delay the procedure and will add human intervention in online system. Further, upon accepting, a unique IGCR Identification Number (IIN) shall be generated which shall be made available to customs officer via common portal itself. But this permission is required only once. Thereafter, he can continue with the scheme thereafter and no consignment wise permission is required. 2) Import of Goods: The concerned importer shall furnish details of IIN and bond number along with Bill of Entry filed. The Customs Commissioner will then allow benefit of exemption notification. Upon filing bill of entry, the bond automatically gets debited in the Customs Automated System. It is clarified that these details shall be available to jurisdictional officer through common portal. Further, the transition provisions given in circular require that importer should give the details of stock bill of entry wise to the portal but the importer maintain the overall stock but bill of entry wise stock is not being maintained. Normally, they follow the FIFO method and presume that closing stock pertain to last bill of enteries. Even we are failed to understand the requirement of the same. This unnecessary requirement will put the importers under pressure and they have to maintain this record and file the same before 13.03.2022 after which portal will start working. 3) Receipt of Goods: It has been clarified that if goods are received directly in importer’s premises or at job-worker’s premises or partly at importer’s premises and partly at job-worker’s premises, the requirement of intimating the receipt has been done away with which is a positive move. Consequently, intimation is required only in case of any non-receipt or short receipt of goods on common portal in Form IGCR-2 based on IIN, invoice and bill of entry. This is a welcome step which doing away the unnecessary requirement of giving intimation on receipt of goods. (a) Goods sent directly on Job-worker’s premises: In such a scenario, importer shall send the goods along with e-way bill. Since, the requirement of intimating is done away with, now the importer shall maintain records and details in monthly statement. Further, the maximum period for which goods shall remain with job worker shall be 6 months from date of invoice or e-way bill. On the contrary, as per Section 143 of CGST Section 2017, the maximum period for which goods shall remain with job worker shall be 1 year in case of inputs and 3 years in case of capital goods. Furthermore, in GST no invoice is required to be prepared in case goods are sent to job worker’s premises which is a contradictory point as far as this circular is concerned. Instead, challan should be issued to send goods to job worker’s premises. Therefore, in to avoid any ambiguity and difference, the said circular should be amended and brought on the same lines as in GST Law. (b) Inter Unit transfer of goods: In case goods are sent to any other unit of same importer, the circular require that these goods shall be accompanied with invoice along with E-way bill mentioning the description and quality of goods. On the contrary, in case any other unit of the importer is in the same state under same registration, no invoice is required as per GST Act and only e-way bill is required. Normally, taxpayer issues delivery challan for the same. The above circular should be amended and issued in alignment of GST Act to avoid any discrepancies in the minds of importer and officers both. Hence, the requirement of issuance of invoice should be done away with. But when the different registration is taken for different units having separate address then invoice is issued. But this happen rarely. Normally, units are registered in the same registration number. However, when the different units of a taxpayer is in different state then they are treated as distinct person and as such the movement of goods take place under invoice and e-way bill then this requirement is perfect. Hence, it should be prescribed in circular that the movement of goods should take place as per GST rules and regulations. (c) Utilization of goods for intended purpose: It has been clarified the importer shall use the imported goods on which exemption is availed within 6 months from date of import failing which importer shall have option either to re-export goods or clear for home consumption. (d) Re-export or clearance for home consumption: In case goods are re-exported, details shall be recorded in documents which shall be specified against bill of entry, invoice and item details of goods imported. Further, it is clarified that in case importer intends to clear un-utilized or defective goods on payment of duty and interest, import duty payable shall be difference between duty leviable and duty already paid along with interest u/s 28AA from the date of import to date of actual payment. The details of these shall be recorded by importer in monthly statement and duties along with interest and shall be paid using manual challan at the port. 4) Monthly statement and maintenance of account: The monthly statement shall be submitted by 10th day of following month in Form IGCR-3. However, the first monthly return shall be submitted in April 2022 which means that return for the month of March is to be filed online. In earlier regime, there was requirement of quarterly return but now it is to be filed monthly. Hence, it is increasing the compliance burden. The importer in respect of imported goods maintain an account in prescribed format which shall be produced to Jurisdictional Customs Officer as and when required. Moreover, one more prescribed statement is also to be maintained for inter unit movement of goods. Furthermore, job worker should also maintain records in prescribed format. But all these transactions are recorded in GST and as such this should be accepted rather than prescribing one more set of records for this purpose. This will increase the compliance burden of taxpayers. When the records of GST are accepted for movement of goods then the records should also be accepted. 5) Transitional Measures: Clarification is issued in respect of transition phase wherein it is clarified that in case goods imported under IGCR already exist in the premises of importer on date of transition option is provided to importer to record details of goods according to bill of entries, invoices etc. in monthly statement and linking the past bill of entries in the common portal. This will increase the compliance work of importers since earlier details of stock was maintained as per FIFO method as stated above. However, the circular has issued to link the details of quantity along with bill of entries. Consequently, increasing workload of the importers to a greater extend. Moreover, the importer shall have option to submit procurement certificates for import for availing benefit of the scheme till 13.03.2022. It is also clarified that currently the system as regards to EOUs claiming exemption of duties on imported goods is under development and hence, they can continue to follow manual process for the same. The afore-mentioned CBIC circular is a valuable initiative by the Government substantiating the motive of “Atmanirbhar Bharat” wherein continuous efforts are made towards creating an environment for promoting manufacturing by domestic industry to make them competitive globally in international markets. However, the officers should be directed to implement this new system with human face and try to resolve the problems of taxpayers.
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