Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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