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 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