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. 232 ON CONTRARY CLARIFICATIONS ON REFLECTION OF INELIGIBLE ITC:-

GST UPDATE NO. 232 ON CONTRARY CLARIFICATIONS ON REFLECTION OF INELIGIBLE ITC:-
GST law was formulated with the idea of uniform indirect taxation throughout the nation but with the passage of time, this objective has lost its significance in view of contrary advance rulings and contrary circulars issued by the CBIC and various State Governments. Recently, after conduct of the 47th GST Council, CBIC has issued various clarifications on numerous issues in GST. The present update seeks to discuss the clarification issued vide Circular No. 170/02/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022.
According to the circular, guidelines have been issued for furnishing of information regarding ITC availed, reversal thereof and ineligible ITC in table 4 of GSTR-3B. It has been stated that with the advancement of the facility of auto-population of the input tax credit in table 4A of the GSTR-3B from FORM GSTR-2B, the reflection of reversal of ineligible credit becomes important for the assessees. The total ITC (eligible as well as ineligible) is being auto-populated from the Statement in FORM GSTR-2B in different fields of Table 4A of FORM GSTR-3B (except for the ineligible ITC on account of limitation of time period as delineated in sub-section (4) of section 16 of the CGST Act or where the recipient of an intra state supply is located in a different State/UT than that of place of supply.
It is clarified that the credit reversal under table 4D (1) will comprise of reversal under Rule 38 by a banking company or financial institution, Rule 42 pertaining to reversal of credit on account of supply of exempted goods or services, Rule 43 pertaining to reversal on capital goods on account of supply of exempted goods or services and ineligible ITC reported in table 4B(1).
On the contrary, reversal of ITC which is not permanent in nature such as under Rule 37 for non-payment of consideration to supplier within 180 days or non-receipt of goods or any credit taken inadvertently will be reported in table 4D(2) as other reversal. It is also stated that ITC not available, on account of limitation of time period as delineated in subsection (4) of section 16 of the CGST Act or where the recipient of an intra state supply is located in a different State / UT than that of place of supply, may be reported by the registered person in Table 4D (2). Such details are available in Table 4 of FORM GSTR-2B.
Accordingly, it is clarified that the reversal of ITC of ineligible credit under section 17(5) or any other provisions of the CGST Act and rules thereunder is required to be made under Table 4(B) and not under Table 4(D) of FORM GSTR3B.
It is worth noting that practically, no assessee uses the auto-populated figure of ITC reflected in Table 4A of GSTR-3B which is derived from GSTR-2B for the reason that it captures ineligible credit also. Majority of the assesses do not account for ineligible credit in table 4A of GSTR-3B and consequently, they do not reflect the reversal of such ineligible credit under section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 under table 4D(1) of GSTR-3B. However, the clarification issued by the CBIC directs to reflect the reversal of credit under section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 under table 4D(1) of GSTR-3B as the said credit is being auto-populated in table 4B(1) of the GSTR-3B.
It is also pertinent to mention that the above clarification is absolutely contrary to the Circular No. 01/2022 dated 05.04.2022 issued by the Rajasthan GST Department which has categorically stated that in order to properly make settlement or transfer of funds from the Centre to State or vice versa, it is necessary to reflect ineligible ITC as per the provisions of section 17(5) has to be reported in table 4D (1) whereas the table 4(D)(2) shall include the ineligible/blocked credit as per the provisions of Section 17(4) of the CGST/RGST Act read with Rule 38 and shall also include other ineligible ITC like ITC availed wrongly in the previous period etc. Now, the assessees falling under Rajasthan jurisdiction will be under dilemma as to which clarification should be implemented. The government should realise that controversy in GST regime as regards procedural compliance should be minimum so that unwarranted litigation 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