Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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