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. 79TH ON DIVERGENT RULINGS ON AVAILABILITY OF ITC ON CSR EXPENSES: -

GST UPDATE NO. 79TH ON DIVERGENT RULINGS ON AVAILABILITY OF ITC ON CSR EXPENSES: -
The admissibility of input tax credit on the CSR expenses incurred by the company has been a point of dispute since the erstwhile regime when the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were prevalent. It has been held in the case of M/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Essel Propack Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Bhiwandi [2018 (362) E.L.T. 833 (Tri.-Mumbai)] that CSR is mandatory requirement for PSUs and has been made obligatory also for the private sector so it is to be considered as input services eligible for credit. However, the above decisions pertain to pre-GST era whereas there are contrary rulings in the GST regime as regards admissibility of ITC on CSR expenses. The recent decision pronounced by Gujarat AAR in the case of M/s ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [ADVANCE RULING NO. GUJ/GAAR/R/44/2021 dated 11.08.2021] is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.
 
The issue involved in the present case was availability of input tax credit on expenditure incurred on various CSR activities such as civil works or installation of plant and machinery items in schools or hospitals, distribution of food kits etc. The applicant pleaded that the business incurred on the CSR activities are mandatory requirement as per the Companies Act and so shall be covered under the definition of ‘business’ under the GST Law. Reliance was also placed on the decision given by Calcutta High Court in the case of Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1967 (64) ITR 568 Cal] wherein it was held that business expediency may not require that all the expenses be incurred for earning immediate profits.
However, the Gujarat AAR held that as per Rule 4(1) of the Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014, CSR activities undertaken by the company shall exclude activities undertaken in pursuance of it’s normal course of business. As per Rule 2(d) of the Companies (CSR Policy) Amendment Rules, 2021, “CSR” does not include activities undertaken in pursuance of normal course of business of the company. Consequently, the AAR held that section 16(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, stipulates that input tax credit is admissible with respect to activities in the course or furtherance of business and so section 16(1) bars CSR activities from input/input service. The reliance placed on the decisions of pre-GST era was rejected on account of change in law and the favourable advance ruling pronounced by UP in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. was also rejected on the grounds that the advance ruling is binding only on the applicant and jurisdictional officer. Hence, the ITC on CST activities was denied by the AAR.
 
If the above decision is pursued, it is found that the ruling has been pronounced on absurd grounds as the provision of other law has been applied to the GST law. If the CSR Rules exclude activities undertaken during the normal course from CSR activities, it is for the reason that the company need to expend certain amount on activities other than regularly done by them. However, this cannot be taken as a ground to deny ITC under GST Laws. If any activity is not CSR at first place itself under the CSR Rules, the question of admissibility of input tax credit under GST law does not arise at all. As such, the ruling has been pronounced by moulding the interpretation to deny the ITC available to the assessee. Moreover, the decision given in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. has referral value and the analogy adopted thereon appears to be more appropriate. It has been held that gift denotes a voluntary act done out of generosity whereas CSR is obligatory in nature. Consequently, the expenditure incurred under CSR cannot be considered as gift so as to deny the benefit of input tax credit under section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is hoped that the adverse ruling pronounced by AAR is further appealed to AAAR.
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