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 197 on refund cannot be denied for mistake in filing GSTR-3B

GST Update No 197 on refund cannot be denied for mistake in filing GSTR-3B

GST era promoted the digitisation of various compliances in the GST Law including sanction of refunds. But as we all know that technology has its own disadvantages, there were various technical glitches faced by the assessees during the initial stage of GST implementation. The refund claims of IGST paid on exports were being withheld for non-transmission of data on account of errors committed while filing GST returns. Similar issue was raised recently before hon’ble MADRAS HIGH COURT in the case of M/S ABI TECHNOLOGIES V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. The decision imparted in this respect is subject matter of discussion of our present update.

 

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition since refund of Rs. 24,72,018/- was not sanctioned on account of exports during July 2017, Sept, 2017 to Oct, 2017. In the present case, the details were reflected in GSTR-1 regarding the exports made. However, no reflection was made in GSTR-3B under Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner submitted that outward supplies related to export would qualify as zero rated supply, details of which are to be filled in GSTR-3B under Column 3.1(b). However, by mistake, the details were furnished under column of outward supply (other than zero rated and exempted) for a consecutive period of 3 months.  Consequently, refund of IGST was denied to the petitioner. Reference was made to CBIC Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 in this regard.

 

The Counsel of revenue argued that refund is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes correct information in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Upon filing of the returns, GSTN portal shall transmit the details of export invoices to the system of Customs department and then upon verification, refund is granted.  It was submitted that since no details were transmitted from GSTN portal, refund cannot be sanctioned.

 

The Court held that under although the process of refund is long recognised in erstwhile GST regime as well, still processing of refund under GST regime is a process driven task. It was stated that export incentives are given in order to encourage the exports resulting into inward remittance of foreign exchange. Therefore, it was held that this procedure should have liberal interpretation so that intent of law is not defeated. Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. VS. AURIYA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALLAHABAD 1986 (25) E.L.T.867 (S.C). It was therefore, directed to sanction the refund after due verification of all the details of the petitioner.

 

The above ruling is yet another example of the settled principle that the substantial benefits of refund should not be denied to the assessee on account of minor mistakes and defaults thereby resulting into adverse impact on the working capital requirement of business of the assessee. The above decision is in uniformity with the decision as that pronounced by Delhi CESTAT in the case of M/S VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED V/S COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR wherein it was held that refund cannot be denied due to procedural lapses. The revenue authorities should understand the basic ideology of legislation behind implementation of refund process failing which will increase the miseries faced by exporters.

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