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 282 ON GUIDELINES FOR FILING TRAN-1 DUE TO SC ORDER

GST UPDATE No 282 ON GUIDELINES FOR FILING TRAN-1 DUE TO SC ORDER
Even after 5 long years of implementation of GST, the saga of transitional credit continues till date. The disputes regarding carry forward of credit from the erstwhile indirect tax regime to the GST regime have reached to the maximum point as the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT LTD. has provided another opportunity to the taxpayers for filing/revising the TRAN-1/TRAN-2 returns which will ignite the fire of litigation. Recently, the CBIC has issued guidelines for filing/revising TRAN-1/TRAN-2 in terms of the order passed by the hon’ble Supreme Court vide Circular No. 180/12/2022-GST dated 09.09.2022. The present update seeks to discuss the implications of the clarification issued.The highlighting aspect of the clarification is that unlike the original TRAN-1/TRAN-2 where the input tax credit flowed to the electronic credit ledger of the assessee automatically, the assessees filing/revising their TRAN-1 on account of the above cited Supreme Court order will get their claim verified by the jurisdictional authority and subsequently, the input tax credit will be transferred in their electronic credit ledger. Moreover, another interesting aspect is the filing of declaration in the format given in ‘Annexure-A’. After studying the circular, it appears that the controversies related to transitional credit will increase manifold in the days to come.
One important point to be noted here is that it is clarified that cases where the credit availed by the registered person on the basis of FORM GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2 filed earlier, has either wholly or partly been rejected by the proper officer, the appropriate remedy in such cases is to prefer an appeal against the said order or to pursue alternative remedies available as per law. Where the adjudication/ appeal proceeding in such cases is pending, the appropriate course would be to pursue the saidadjudication/ appeal. In such cases, filing a fresh declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2, pursuant to the special dispensation being provided vide this circular, is not the appropriate course of action. It is submitted that the circular restricts revising of TRAN-1 in cases where the original TRAN-1 is pending for adjudication or is pending in appeal proceedings whereas no such distinction was made by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has granted one time relief to all the taxpayers, for filing/revising transitional credit but the guidelines are going beyond the intention of the Supreme Court order. In our opinion, the assessees should have the option to withdraw the appeal filed in case they wish to revise their transitional return. This restriction will be the point of dispute and will be the cause of increasing litigations as the assessees cannot be compelled to do a particular course of action when the benefit of filing/revising TRAN-1 is open to all the assessees.
Furthermore, the clarification also states the case where the assessee has claimed transitional credit in GSTR-3B but now wants to regularise the same by filing revised TRAN-1. In this context, the part B of the declaration in Annexure-B is relevant which states that the taxpayer is either liable to confirm that they have not claimed any transitional credit in GSTR-3B filed by them or needs to specify the amount of transitional credit availed by them in GSTR-3B filed by them and also provide the details of reversal of credit in order to file revised transitional credit and regularise the same. Now, the declaration will enhance litigation as there can be disagreement between the assessee and department regarding the amount of credit reversal and the interest amount. While assessee may claim that as they were legitimately available for claiming interest since 01.07.2017, there is no requirement of paying interest whereas department may contend that the proper mechanism to avail transitional credit is via filing TRAN-1 so the credit availed in GSTR-3B needs to be reversed along with interest.
Moreover, the declaration is also to be given that no refund has been claimed for the carry forward credit or the amount to be transitioned as credit has not been utilised or adjusted against liability under the existing (erstwhile) law. In this context, reference is made to the issue regarding payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism after implementation of GST regimewherein the input tax credit could not be claimed in the transitional return filed by the assessee. It is to be noted that there have been various favourable decisions granting refund of the tax so paid under RCM to the assessee such as FLEXI CAPS AND POLYMERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE-INDORE [2021 (9) TMI 917-CESTAT NEW-DELHI], M/S. CIRCOR FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. V/S THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE. However, it is to be noted that there have been decision rendered by hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S GANGES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD. V/S THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE wherein credit of service tax paid under RCM was allowed to be taken in the electronic credit ledger in GST regime. In contrast, adverse view was taken as regards availment of such credit in GST regime in the case of M/S SRC PROJECTS LIMITED. Now, the question arises is whether it is possible to claim the said RCM credit of service tax as transitional credit by filing revised return in view of the Supreme Court order. In our opinion, as the said issue is covered by favourable decisions, it is possible for the assessee to take a chance by revising the transitional return inspite of the fact that there is no express provision in the GST law for the same. However, the issue will be litigated by the department and so the assessee should keep in mind the litigation cost associated with it.
Likewise, another issue is regarding carry forward of education cess, SHE cess or KKC in the GST regime. Although, there are contrary decisions on the issue regarding carry forward of cesses into GST regime, retrospective amendment made in section 140 indicates the intention of the government to disallow carry forward of cesses in GST regime. However, the retrospective amendment too has drafting error and is prone to be challenged in the courts. Amidst the confusion, whether assessees can revise their transitional return for claiming the carry forward of the cesses is again a question that remains unanswered.
The above cited issues related to transition of credit into GST regime are point of great concern both for the assessees and the revenue department. Its high time that the government should end this story of transitional credit so that the objective of ease of doing business can be achieved.

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