Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No. 233 ON CIRCULAR REGARDING REFLECTION OF INELIGILBE CREDIT-PART-2

GST UPDATE No. 233 ON CIRCULAR REGARDING REFLECTION OF INELIGILBE CREDIT-PART-2
In our previous update, we had brought out the anomaly in the clarification issued by the CBIC on reflection of ineligible credit vis a vis circular issued by the Rajasthan State GST department. In the present update, we wish to discuss the practical difficulties in implementation of the guidelines laid down by the recent Circular No. 170/02/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 issued by the CBIC.
It has been clarified that since the auto-populated figure of input tax credit from FORM GSTR-2B in table 4A of the GSTR-3B consists of ineligible input tax credit under section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, the assessee is required to reflect reversal of the credit under section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 in table 4B(1) so that the net input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger does not consist of ineligible credit. It is submitted that majority of the taxpayers do not account for ineligible input tax credit in their books of accounts as it is very tedious to maintain the record of ineligible credit. Consequently, many of the assessees do not even bother to reflect the amount of ineligible credit in table 4D(1) of the GSTR-3B. However, the clarification expects that the assessee identifies the ineligible credit which is auto-populated in table 4B (5) and reflect it as reversal under table 4B(1) of the GSTR-3B. In our opinion, this is futile exercise as it compels the assessee to keep track record of ineligible credit which is not even being accounted for in the normal course by majority of the assessees. This will definitely add to the compliance burden of the taxpayers. Moreover, as per section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, input tax credit is not available to the assessee for certain specified goods and services, but the circular requires the assessee to avail the said ineligible credit and thereafter reflect it as reversal which is unproductive exercise. The circular prescribes a mechanism of reflection of ineligible credit by considering the report generated by the GST portal in FORM GSTR-2B which is not proper as merely because ineligible credit is being included in the auto-populated figure, the taxpayer cannot be forced to change their accounting of transactions.
It is further submitted that the circular also specifies that in case the assessee has not received the goods but the input tax credit pertaining to the said invoice is being reflected in the auto-populated figure of table 4A of the GSTR-3B, the assessee is required to reflect the said amount of ITC as reversal in table 4B(2) and can re-claim it when the goods are actually received in the premises. This again is a cumbersome exercise as the assessee would be required to keep a track record of the goods in transit and the fact that the ITC is being re-claimed on their actual receipt. It appears that the above directions have been issued so that the auto-populated figure of ITC in table 4A is being re-conciled. However, it is submitted that the assessee will have to re-claim the said ITC of goods in transit in the subsequent return due to which there will be discrepancy in the figure as stated in the GSTR-3B and that auto-populated from FORM GSTR-2B. Consequently, in our view, the above direction leads to unwarranted exercise on the part of assessee and should be re-considered by the government. Moreover, no assessee will record such goods not received in books of account. Hence, he has to manually maintain this information on monthly basis as department may ask this information after 4 or 5 years at the time of audit of taxpayer. Keeping record of this information for so many years which are not incorporated in accounts also is again cumbersome procedure.
In opinion of author of this update, this recording is also not legally sustainable as there is clearcut provision in statue that the ineligible credit as well as credit on goods-in-transit should not be taken. Although there are many decisions on this count that taking of credit and reversing the same means that the credit has not been availed. But nobody knows that Auditor General may object the same and ask for penal action. 
Lastly, the requirement of reflecting the ineligible ITC on account of limitation of time period as delineated in sub-section (4) of section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 is yet another procedural liability to be discharged by the assessee by maintaining the list of transactions for which input tax credit is not available on account of being not claimed within the period of limitation. It is to be noted that this data can be compiled only in the month of November following the relevant financial year.
The above clarification increases the procedural compliance of the taxpayers’ manifold which has no revenue implication as such. The guidelines laid down by the circular should not be made mandatory as it would lead to unnecessary harassment of the assessees.
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