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 338 on Circular by Kerala Government regarding amended GSTR-3B

GST Update No 338 on Circular by Kerala Government regarding amended GSTR-3B
Since the introduction of GST regime, the GSTR-3B underwent substantial changes of which one of the significant changes was methodology of making declaration regarding input tax credit which was introduced after 43rd GST Council meeting vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022. To put an end to confusions and discussions on this issue and bring uniformity, recently Kerala GST Wing issued a Trade Circular No. 1/2022 dated 21.11.2022. The detailed analysis of this Circular is subject matter of our present update.
 
It is well known that in Table 4(A) of GSTR-3B pertaining to input tax credit, auto-populated input tax credit gets reflected from auto-drafted inward statement i.e. GSRT-2B. Further, the utilization of input tax credit against output tax liabilities as shown in Table 6 of GSTR-3B gets auto-populated from electronic credit ledger and also from Table 4(C)- Net ITC Available of GSTR-3B. However, with the amendment in method of declaring input tax credit, it is often observed that the taxpayers are facing confusions which results into wrong declaration of input tax credit in GSTR-3B. There had been instances wherein the taxpayers deduct the amount of ineligible input tax credit directly be editing the total input tax credit amount which is auto-populated in Table 4(A) of GSTR-3B. While in some cases it is observed that the taxpayers fail to declare ineligible input tax credit under Table 4(B) of GSTR-3B. This results into wrong utilization of ineligible credit and hence, the taxpayers shall be liable to reverse such credit along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
 
To put an end to all the tug-of-war between the department and the assessee, it is now stated that the total ITC (eligible and ineligible) which is auto-populated in Table 4A of GSTR-3B shall not be deducted with the amount of ineligible input tax credit. Hence, out of the input tax credit as shown under Table 4(A) of GSTR-3B, if input tax credit needs to be reversed on account of Rule 38, Rule 42 and 43 and Section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017, the same shall be declared in Table 4(B) (1) of GSTR-3B. Furthermore, in case of reversal of ITC which are not permanent in nature and is reclaimable in future such as Rule 37, Section 16(2)(b), 16(2)(c) and input tax credit which was wrongly availed in any previous tax period due to inadvertent mistake shall be displayed in Table 4(B)(2) of GSTR-3B. The same may be reclaimed in future in n Table 4 (A) of GSTR-3B. All such reclaimed input tax credit shall also be shown in Table 4 (D) (1) of GSTR-3B. Hence, under Table 4(C) of GSTR-3B, “Net ITC available” shall be displayed which shall be 4A-[4B(1)+4B(2)]. Furthermore, input tax credit available as per Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 or where recipient is located in a different State / UT than that of place of supply shall be displayed in Table 4D(2) of GSTR-3B. However, in case ineligible or blocked input tax credit is availed wherein the time limit of filing rectification in GSTR-3B is expired, the reversal of input tax credit in such a case shall be made by filing GST DRC-03.
 
The above clarification is a welcoming clarification by the taxpayers wherein all the disputes and discussions are ended. However, it seems that now the taxpayers need to be more vigilant before filing GSTR-3B failing which adverse repercussions will be faced by them. It is highly anticipated that other state Governments shall also address this issue and issue suitable clarifications in this respect at the earliest possible.
 
 
 
 
 

 
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