Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update No 193 on denial of ITC for cancellation of supplier’s registration

GST update No 193 on denial of ITC for cancellation of supplier’s registration
GST Law was implemented with a concept of seamless flow of credit from one end of the transaction chain to the last recipient. However, with the advent of GST, the whole indirect tax regime went under a radical change wherein the departmental authorities have made the recipient as the culprit where there is any default by the supplier. On the contrary, under the erstwhile regime, there were numerous judicial pronouncements holding that recipient cannot be denied the legitimate credit for defaults in payment of tax by the supplier. Furthermore, compliance of provision of Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 36(4) are another burning issues. Recently, one such issue regarding admissibility of input tax credit has travelled before Calcutta High Court in the case of M/S SANCHITA KUNDU ANR. V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CALCUTTA wherein the input tax credit was denied on the grounds that the supplier’s registration was cancelled after the transaction. The decision imparted in this respect is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner filed a writ petition since the department denied the benefit of input tax credit on purchase of goods on the grounds that the registration of the supplier is already cancelled retrospectively covering the tax period in question. The petitioner contended that the transactions in question are genuine and valid based on the documents which are in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner further argued that proper due diligence was exercised while verifying the genuineness of the supplier. The names of the registered suppliers were available at the Government portal showcasing validity of registration. It was further contended that the petitioner has done everything possible to check the validity and genuineness of the transaction and therefore, could not be faulted if the supplier appeared to be fake afterwards. The petitioner further argued that he cannot be CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6 penalised for the supplier’s action unless department establishes the fact that the transactions were an outcome of any collusion between the supplier and the purchaser. Furthermore, it was submitted that all the purchase invoices were available on the GST portal in GSTR-2A which are matter of records for the department. Reference was made to recent decision given in the case of M/S. LGW INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. in W.P.A No.23512 of 2019. The Court held that the petitioner possessed all the relevant documents regarding purchases made and concluded that the transactions in question were made before cancellation of registration. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements of High Courts as well in this regard. It was directed to pass a speaking order and directed the revenue department after considering the submissions of the petitioner. The above decision is yet another favourable judgment on the concerned subject. The similar issue was a point of dispute in erstwhile indirect tax regime as well wherein the Apex court affirmed the view of Delhi High Court in the case of Arise India Limited wherein it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution shall be attracted in case of failure to distinguish between bona fide and malafide purchasers. The judiciary upheld the viewpoint that in case the purchasing dealer has taken all necessary steps to verify that selling dealer has a valid registration and issued tax invoice as per Law, he cannot be expected to keep a track record of selling dealer. Therefore, the bona fide and malafide purchasers are not treated at par. Although there are favourable decisions on the issue but the businesses have to exercise extra care and are required to be more cautious of acquiring goods from highly risky vendors to ensure that their interests are protected in case of any future demand from GST authorities.
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