Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update No 271 on return filing and revision due date of Tran1 cannot be same

GST update No 271 on return filing and revision due date of Tran1 cannot be same
The paradigm shift from erstwhile indirect tax regime to the GST regime and carrying forward of unutilised input tax credit was a roller coaster ride wherein the ambiguities and confusions prevailed in the minds of the taxpayers. There had been catena of cases wherein the High Court granted relief to the taxpayers on account of delay in filing of Tran-1. On similar lines, one case was reported before Madras High Court in the case of M/S INTERPLEX ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. V/S THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXEX. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.The petitioner sought a mandamus as regards carry forward of credit of Rs. 16,21,227/- and of Rs. 4,24,136/- to the electronic credit ledger. The petitioner claimed unutilised CENVAT credit as per returns for the month June 2017 and for service tax for the period from April 2017 to June 2017. As per Rule 117 of CGST Rule, 2017, the GST registrant was required to file declaration in Tran-1 within 90 days from 01.07.2017. The time limit was further extended taking into account the difficulty faced by the taxpayers. On parallel lines, Rule 120A provided a time limit for revision of Tran-1 which was inferred from the timelines set under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, it was submitted that the timelines equally apply on revision filing as well. The petitioner filed Tran-1 wherein error was detected since instead of Rs. 16,21,227/- it was mentioned Rs. 76,395/- and credit of Rs. 4,24,136/- was omitted. It was argued that a representation was filed seeking permission for availment of credit. The petitioner further questioned the wisdom since the last date for filing of Tran-1 and revision of Tran-1 being one and same. Reference was drawn to the decision of Divisional Bench of the Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI SOUTH V/S BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. Further Reliance was placed on the decision of AMPLEXOR INDIA PVT. LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA, BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. The petitioner prayed that during the initialphase of implementation of GST, directions were issued in favour of petitioner for smooth flow. Another submission was the observation made by the Bench wherein it was held that claiming credit is not the vested right of the taxpayer.The respondent further relied on the decision of P.R. MANI ELECTRONICS V/S UNION OF INDIA. It was further argued that only recourse available to an assessee is challenging Rule 120A in absence of which no relief can be granted. Further reference was made to the decision of Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. AND OTHERS wherein the decision of Delhi High Court was reversed. It was therefore argued that the timelinessunder CGST Act and Rules are sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any circumstances.The Court stated that the present case is on a different footing. The timeliness of seeking transition credit is mandatory. The point under consideration is whether the time limit of filing Tran-1 and seeking revision in the return can be one and the same. It was therefore, held that Rule 117 and 120A cannot be harmonized and viable in practicality. Itwas directed that time frame under Rule 120A must be period over and above the timeline prescribed in Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017. It was directed to reopen the portal within a period of 8 weeks such that revision may be sought.The above decision is a favourable decision concluding that there cannot be same time limits for filing original as well as revised return. It is very logical that the time limit for revision should be beyond the time limit prescribed for filing original return. It is worth mentioning that recently, hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed 2 months additional window from 1st September, 2022 to 31 October, 2022 in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. AND ANR. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 628]. Hence, reliefs as regards filing of TRAN-1 is being granted by the Courts. Furthermore, a miscellaneous application has also been reported to have been furnished by the Centre for the limited purpose for asking time extension of 60 days upto 31st December, 2022 to assure that the GST web portal would be effective to work in all fields for the execution of the order issued by the Supreme court .
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