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. 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