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 247 on SC granting last chance to file TRAN-1 by 31.10.2022

GST Update No 247 on SC granting last chance to file TRAN-1 by 31.10.2022
The implementation of the revolutionary tax reform being GST was not as smooth as was perceived as there have been number of disputes as regards the transition of erstwhile credit into the GST regime. With the passage of time, there had been plethora of cases wherein assessees have been denied the carry forward of the transitional credit into GST regime. This update seeks to discuss the latest decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. & ANR. which seeks to open the window for filing transitional return for all the assessees from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022. It is not the first time that the extension to file transitional credit to all the assessees has been granted by the Court by exercising their discretionary powers. On earlier occasion also, the hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA had held that the period of 90 days for claiming input tax credit in TRAN-1 is directory and therefore, the period of limitation of 3 years under the Limitation Act would apply. The Delhi High Court had directed the department to allow all assessees to claim input tax credit in TRAN-1 by 30.06.2020. This decision was remarkable as it provided extended time limit for filing transitional credit to all the assessees. However, it appears that the tussle regarding carry forward of transitional credit is alive even after 5 years of GST implementation which has led to intervention by the Supreme Court on this matter. The hon’ble Apex Court has directed the GSTN to open the GST common portal for filing Tran-1 and Tran-2 for 2 months w.e.f 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022 thereby allowing all the taxpayers to file their transitional returns irrespective of the fact that they have approached the Court of Law or not. The extended time period is also applicable for revising the already filed transitional credits. Furthermore, in past, various High Courts have allowed the assessees to file transitional returns after the expiry of time limit on the grounds that proof regarding technical glitches faced by them was produced. However, the present judgment does not require that the benefit is to be granted only if there was technical glitch faced by the assessee and rather the benefit is available to all the taxpayers unconditionally. The Supreme Court has also stated that the GSTN is under a liability to ensure that they are no technical glitch during the said time for filing the transitional credit. The concerned officers are given 90 days thereafter to verify the claim of transitional credit and pass appropriate orders on merits after granting appropriate reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned. The Apex Court also mentioned that the GST Council may also issue appropriate guidelines to the field formations in scrutinizing the claims, if required. It is worth mentioning over here that now the above stated judgement will grow as a benchmark for thousands of cases which are pending and brining them to a logical end. Further, the above decision supports the basic principle that legitimate credit earned by the taxpayers is their vested right and therefore, should not be denied and withdrawn merely because of procedural lapses. The above ruling has well established the principle of equality thereby treating all the taxpayers who have claimed or failed to claim credit at equal footings. The above decision has proved to be a silver lining in the clouds for the business houses. Although, it is worth noting that 5 years have passed down the road since inception of GST regime, yet the assessees are struggling to transition their credit of erstwhile regime to the GST era. However, the Apex Court should have also deliberated on the burning issue regarding claim of credit of tax paid under reverse charge mechanism after implementation of GST regime as there is no express provision to either avail input tax credit or claim refund in such scenarios. Although, there are favourable decisions rendered by High Courts that have allowed credit of such tax in electronic credit ledger of the assessee or have granted refund of the said amount to the assessee. Similarly, the issue regarding re-credit of the amount debited by the assessees for claiming refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which has been subsequently rejected post implementation of GST needs to be considered with possible remedy to the taxpayer. Nonetheless, since the facility to revise the transitional credit has been granted, the assessees should be allowed to report such peculiar transactions so that the legitimately earned credit is not being lapsed for absence of express provision in the statue.
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