Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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