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 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