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 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