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 173 on glitches in transfer of credit to new unit

GST Update No 173 on glitches in transfer of credit to new unit
With the advent of GST, major
compliances have been digitised but
technology has its own disadvantages
too. It is often observed that the
amendments made in the GST Law is
not implemented on the GST portal
which leads to delay in grant of
benefits to the taxpayers. It is very
common that the utilities needed to
operationalise the provisions is not
updated timely on the GST portal due
to which assessees have to suffer and
knock the doors of High Court. The
present update seeks to discuss the
decision delivered by Rajasthan High
Court in the case of PACIFIC
INDUSTRIES LTD V/S UNION OF INDIA
wherein the benefit of transfer of
credit was being denied for non-filing
of FORM GST ITC-02A which was
actually not available on the GST portal.
The analysis of this decision is the
subject matter of discussion of our
present update.
The petitioner is a registered dealer
having industrial units in Udaipur. It
was contended that after the
amendment dated 01.02.2019,
separate registrations as per different
locations of business were allowed and
therefore, separate tax liability and
input credit was calculated for each
unit. Furthermore, Rule 41A was also
introduced vide notification dated
29.01.2019 which prescribes transfer of
unutilised Input credit to other unit
within the same state of the assessee.
Therefore, Form GST ITC-02A came into
existence. The petitioner raised
grievance that since Form GST ITC-02A
was not available on the portal, they
were not given an opportunity of
transferring Input Tax Credit. The
petitioner uploaded manual copy and
submitted it to the Jurisdictional
Department. It was contended that
immense financial difficulty was being
faced due to non-transfer of the credit
balance to the electronic credit ledger
of the petitioner. The petitioner stated
that grievance was raised with the
helpdesk in response of which a
tutorial link was generated. However,
the link was regarding filing form ITC-02
and not ITC-02A. Later on, another
letter was submitted to the
commissioner regarding the same issue
but no response was received thereto.
The Counsel for the department
contended that the petitioner failed to
furnish Form GST ITC-02A within 30
days from date of newly registered unit
CA. PRADEEP JAIN
??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5
and so they cannot transfer the credit
to the new unit.
The court held that the facts of the
case clearly showcases that the
petitioner was deprived of the
opportunity of furnishing Form GST ITC02A. Further, the petitioner diligently
completed his duty of informing the
same to the GST help desk by lodging a
grievance regarding the same.
Consequently, it was held that the
petitioner shall be allowed to avail
input tax credit in the GSTR-3B filed for
the next month.
The above decision is a welcoming
decision wherein the Hon’ble High
Court condoned non-filing of FORM
GST ITC-02A for transfer of credit to the
new unit on account of technical glitch
on the GST portal. The High Court has
upheld the established fact that input
credit which is legitimately earned by
the taxpayers should not be denied
merely because of procedural lapses or
due to technical glitches which
subsequently results in liquidity
constraints to the taxpayers. Reference
can be made to following decisions:
• EZZY ELECTRICALS V/S STATE OF
GUJRAT
• MEHAR TEX V. THE
COMMISSIONER OF CGST &
ORS. [W.P.(MD) NOS. 22996,
22999 & 23001 OF 2019 AND
W.M.P.(MD) NOS. 19733, 19736
& 19739 OF 2019 DATED 18
MARCH 2021]
It is hoped that the technical lapses on
account of non-updation of the GST
portal is being observed leniently by
the departmental authorities so that
unwarranted litigations can be avoided.
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