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 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