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. 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