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 180 on SC decision on rate of interest on delayed refunds

GST Update No 180 on SC decision on rate of interest on delayed refunds
GST law was incorporated with a motive of simplified and easy tax reform in the economy. It was expected that it will bring hassle free refund process. Even the Government has come out with a time frame to sanction the refund at the earliest for easy and efficient business operations. However, it seems that officers of GST department are reluctant as they adopt bureaucratic practice and red tape procedure to grant refunds to the taxpayers. Intentional and continuing delays are often a matter of discussion among the business community as they face liquidity issues. Moreover, the rate of interest in case of delay in payment of taxes by the assessee is 18% whereas the rate of interest for delay in sanction of refunds is 6%/9%. The issue regarding rate of interest to be granted for delayed sanction of refund claim has travelled down the line from Gujarat High Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S M/S WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD [SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2995-2996 OF 2022]. The decision imparted is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The respondent contended that they are eligible for refund since as per section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, registered person making exports shall be eligible to claim refund of unutilised ITC or refund of IGST paid on exports. The respondent claimed that they shall be entitled to interest due to delay in receipt of compensation ranging between 94 to 290 days. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: • Modi Industries Ltd V/s Commissioner of Income Tax and Another • Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd • Sandvik Asia Ltd The Counsel of the petitioner opposed the same by placing reliance on the various following decisions • K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V/s State of Karnataka • Sandvik Asia Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax-I Pune and others and Commissioner of Income Tax • Gujarat V/s Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. It was argued that the directions of Hon’ble High Court of payment of 9% CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??4 interest p.a. from date of filing of GSTR-3B is incorrect since as per Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017, the interest rate is 6% p.a. only. The Court held that the departmental officers are having no objection on eligibility of grant of refund of interest but disputes are related to rate of interest to be awarded in such a case i.e. 6% instead of 9% p.a. Provisions of Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017 were carefully examined wherein it is mentioned that interest on refund is to be awarded within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of application along with interest at 6% p.a. If in case, the amount to be refunded arises from any order which is not refunded within a period of 60 days, interest at the rate of 9% p.a. would be applicable as per proviso to Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that the “If the statue specifies interest, it shall be payable as per the terms of the provisions of the same. If the statue bars from payment of interest, in that case no interest shall be awarded. Where statue is silent and there is no bar on awarding interest, delay in paying compensation would require rewarding interest at reasonable rate on equitable grounds.” Quoting the decisions on which reliance is placed by the respondent, the court stated that interest awarded in excess of what is mentioned in statue was only for a period beyond 20 years wherein the matter was not covered in statue and therefore, decided by the Court. However, inordinate delay of 17 years in making refund was accepted at 9% p.a. in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd since there was inordinate delay in granting refund. However, in the present case, it was held that High Court has erred in its approach as there is a delay is of just 94 to 290 days which is not inordinate delay and therefore, interest awarded in such a case shall be only 6% and not 9%. From the above decision, it is crystal the GST provisions as regards grant of interest are having biased approach as the genuine taxpayers have to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on every error and on the contrary, the department just awards interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for delay in sanction of refunds. An earnest need is anticipated at the end of government to bring structural level changes coupled with sincere actions and put an end to imparity and inequality among the taxpayers by lowering down the interest rates payable by them for short payment of taxes or increase the rate CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 of interest for delayed sanction of refund claims.
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