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 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