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 235 on circular issued for fake invoices

GST Update No 235 on circular issued for fake invoices
The GST law was introduced to make compliances digitized so that the cases of fake invoices could be eliminated. The implementation of the concept of e-way bill and e-invoices is an initiative in this regard. However, the disputes related to instances of “invoice without supply” or “supply without valid GST invoice” are commonly observed. It is observed that in fake invoice cases, often the revenue department slaps show cause notices to every supplier in the credit chain but whether recovery of demand of tax is to be made from each of the supplier is the moot question which remains unanswered. Recently, CBIC has issued a CIRCULAR NO. 171/03/2022-GST DATED 06.07.2022 clarifying applicability of demand and penalty provisions on the transactions involving fake invoices. The present update seeks to discuss the aforesaid circular.
 
The recent circular discusses applicability of penalty and demand provisions on following issues in respect of fake invoices issued by one registered person to another, thereby highlighting the consequences of “invoice without supply”: -
 
1.      Registered person “A” issues tax invoice to registered person “B” without supply goods. Whether the transaction be treated as “supply” under Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 and whether any demand, recovery and penal actions can be initiated against “A”- It is clarified by CBIC that since only tax invoice is issued by “A” to “B” without any actual supply of goods, the above   transaction does not fall under the definition of supply under Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017. Since there is no supply, no tax liability arises against “A” and accordingly, no demand and recovery can be initiated against “A” in accordance with provisions of Section73 and 74 of CGST Act, 2017. However, he shall be liable for penal action under Section 122 of CGST Act,2017.
 
2.      Registered person “A” issues tax invoice to registered person “B” without supply goods. “B” availed input tax credit on the basis of tax invoice and utilised the same against discharging output tax liability. Whether “B” will be liable for demand and recovery of ITC along with penal action under Section 73 and 74 of CGST Act, 2017 – It is clarified that “B” has availed and utilised ITC fraudulently without actual receipt of goods and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 16(2)(b) of CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, he shall be liable to pay back wrongly availed ITC under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 along with applicable interest under Section 50 of CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, as per Section 73(13) of CGST Act, 2017, if penal action is initiated against Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, no penalty can be imposed under Section 122 of CGST Act, 2017.
 
3.      Registered person “A” issues tax invoice to registered person “B” without supply goods. “B” availed input tax credit on the basis of tax invoice and passed on ITC to “C” by issuing invoice without supply of goods. Whether demand and penalty can be initiated against “B” under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act, 2017- The CBIC seeks to clarify that no tax liability is attracted on “B” since there is no supply of goods to “C”. However, ‘B’ shall be liable for penal action both under section 122(1)((ii) and section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act, for issuing invoices without any actual supply of goods and/or services as also for taking/ utilizing input tax credit without actual receipt of goods and/or services.
 
The above circular seeks to clarify various instances of fake invoices and consequences to be faced by the parties dealing in fake invoices.  Although it is well settled that in case due diligence has been exercised appropriately by the recipient taxpayer and goods have been further supplied under the cover of proper invoice, no penal action can be taken against the bonafide taxpayer. This is backed by various judicial pronouncements such as decision of Orissa High Court in the case of M/S BRIGHT STAR PLASTIC INDUSTRIES V/S ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (APPEAL) & ORS. The above clarification is a sigh of relief for the taxpayers as far as the confusion regarding recovery of tax along with interest is concerned from the recipient in the supply chain because it appeared that department would recover the tax along with interest from all the persons in the supply chain. It is hoped that the clarification issued by this circular is scrupulously followed by the departmental authorities. 
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