Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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