Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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