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 156 on ITC cannot be denied due to technical issues

GST Update No 156 on ITC cannot be denied due to technical issues
The process of digitalization picked up steam in India many years ago with the introduction of digital payments. Since then, India witnessed substantial digital transformation in business. The most revolutionary amongst them is digitalization in indirect tax regime. With the advent of GST w.e.f. 01st July 2017, the whole regime went under a major radical shift. The step of moving towards digitalization and paperless environment was no doubt an initiative towards ease of doing business. However, since the coin has its other side also, there were hurdles of different kinds as well. One such issue faced by taxpayer is related to technical glitches faced in the process of claiming input tax credit. The issue travelled upto Gujarat High Court in the case of EZZY ELECTRICALS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT. The conclusion arrived at by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and a small size taxpayer eligible for composition scheme u/s 10 of CGST Act, 2017. The applicant was registered under composition scheme till 31.03.2018 and decided to opt out from composition scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2018 by filing GST CMP-04 on 31.03.2018. Once the person ceases to be a composition taxpayer, he is entitled to claim Input Credit as per Section 18(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 by filing GST ITC-01 within a period of 30 days from date of becoming eligible to avail input tax credit. The petitioner contended that he was not able to operate GST portal due to technical glitches while filing form ITC-01 and an error report was generated on the portal. A screenshot in this regard was also submitted to the department. The petitioner further informed that the correspondences were being made by the department regarding the issue since 24.09.2018, however, no further action was taken by department in this regard. The Counsel of the Department argued that GSTN was examined as per details submitted by the petitioner regarding technical glitches. However, it was observed and concluded that there were no technical glitches. On the contrary, it was observed that petitioner used “wrong offline tool” for filing ITC-01 having version number 2.2.3 which was last updated on 10.04.2018. However, the current version of ITC-01 offline tool on GST portal is ITC_offline_v1.0 released on 12.01.2018. It is pertinent to mention that numbering of versions of offline tool is always incremental on GST portal. Since the current version is v1.0, the previous version cannot be greater than v1.0. As per the attached screenshots, offline tool used by petitioner was 2.2.3. Consequently, this represents that petitioner was using wrong utility for filing ITC-01. The Court held that even if contention of department is considered, can it be concluded that all the doors are closed for the taxpayer or is there some scope still left for the authority to permit the petitioner to take refund of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 5 Lakhs. Directions were given to department to find out some way so that refund can be sanctioned to assessee concerned. The department submitted that inquiry was made with E.D.P. Cell Gujarat regarding the subject matter. The Cell asked to inform the same to GSTN but nothing was processed further. The Court stated that even if it was fault of taxpayer i.e. wrong offline tool was being used to file ITC-01, refund should not be denied to him merely on the basis of technical glitch. The department should resolve the controversy and find any way out to settle the matter. The submissions of petitioner were considered wherein it was held that if department would have told the discrepancy to the petitioner on an earlier date, discrepancy could have been resolved. The court directed department to do the needful so that GST ITC-01 can be uploaded by petitioner and refund can be sanctioned at the earliest possible. The above judgment is a favoring judgment for the business houses which substantiates the fact that input credit is a vested right of the taxpayer which cannot be denied merely because of technical errors on the common portal. There are plethora of judgments by various courts wherein same view has been taken that procedural grounds can not supersede the provisions of legislations. In line of those judgments recently Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the matter of ST. JOSEPH TEA COMPANY LTD. V/S STATE TAX OFFICER held that ITC cannot be denied only on the ground that the transaction is not reflected in GSTR-2A. Time and again there are many more petitions in pipeline which will be goingto consume time, money and energy of both Government and assessees for denial of benefit on account of procedural lapses.
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