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 294 on non-payment of tax collected by railways to the government

GST Update No 294 on non-payment of tax collected by railways to the government
It is well settled principle that the taxpayers cannot be burdened with demand and penalty merely because of unintentional mistakes. It is often observed that the tax liability to be discharged under reverse charge mechanism is actually remitted by the recipient to the supplier but the government catches the recipient and fastens demand on them. It appears that revenue authorities are under a habit of punishing the taxpayers irrespective of their intention of evasion of tax or not. Consequently, the Courts have to interfere to award relief to the taxpayers. Recently, a case was reported before Bombay High Court in the case of ARUN KRISHNACHANDRA GOSWAMI V/S UNION OF INDIA wherein the issue of non-payment of tax collected by the railways to the government was raised wherein the actual liability to pay tax to the government was on the recipient under reverse charge mechanism. The decision delivered in this case is the subject matter of our today’s update.
The petitioner is engaged in business of advertising and providing advertising solutions to different parties. The petitioner also provided services to Indian Railways wherein as per the letter of acceptance, it was agreed that the petitioner would pay the applicable taxes to the Railway Administration who in turn would pay the same to the government exchequer. The petitioner continued to pay GST at 18% on value of services to the railways.
On 21.12.2020, a notice was received by the petitioner regarding conducting audit and directing to attend the office along with books of accounts and records for FY 2017-18. During the audit it was stated that petitioner was paying GST at 18% to the Railways instead of paying the same to the Central and State Government.
The counsel of revenue argued that the taxpayer was wrongly making paymentto the Railways in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(3) of CGST Act, 2017 wherein it is prescribed that tax shall be payable by recipient of goods or services or both under reverse charge mechanism. Furthermore, the invoice raised by the petitioner also provides “is tax payable on reverse charge mechanism- Yes”. It was pointed out that the CGST and SGST amount was also mentioned on the invoice.
The Court stated that in the present case, the petitioner has not attempted to evade any tax. In the present case, it is crystal clear that mistakenly petitioner made payment to railways instead of making payment to Government directly. Further, the railway department was also not in an immediate administrative position to check and react to wrongful deposits. Therefore, it was directed to ensure that the amount is to be paid to CGST and SGST authorities within 2 weeks and a sympathetic view should be taken as regards levy of interest or penalty on the petitioner. It was further held that input tax credit of the same should be given to the petitioner after the tax is paid to the government by the railways. However, on pointing out the difficulty of making payment directly to the Government by railways, it was directed by the Court that the railways would remit the amount to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner shall make the payment within one week.
The above decision demonstrates the fact that liberal approach needs to be followed by the authorities in case there is no intention of evasion of tax by the taxpayers. It is very common that the taxes are paid by the recipient to the supplier whereas tax was to be paid by the recipient under reverse charge mechanism to the government exchequer directly. The revenue authorities should take a lenient view for recipient assessees in such cases so that huge penalties and interest amount is not incurred by them merely because of procedural lapses. It is high time that rulings like these should be followed taking a liberal approach so that repercussions are not faced by the taxpayers.
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