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 - Notification 11/2020 dated 21st March 2020 & Circular 134/04/2020 dt 23rd March 2020 & relating to the Companies Covered under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016- Part 1

GST UPDATE - Notification 11/2020 dated 21st March 2020 & Circular 134/04/2020 dt 23rd March 2020 & relating to the Companies Covered under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016- Part 1


As per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), once an entity defaults certain threshold amount, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) gets triggered & the management of such entity (Corporate Debtor) and its assets vest with an interim resolution professional (IRP) or resolution professional (RP). It continues to run the business and operations of the said entity as a going concern till the insolvency proceeding is over and an order is passed by the NCLT.

The CBIC vide Notification No. 11/2020- Central Tax dt 21st March 2020 has prescribed the special procedures for the corporate debtors under the provisions of IBC, who are undergoing the CIRP and the management of whose affairs are being undertaken by IRP or RP. These special procedures are related to following main areas:-
·         Registration
·         Filing of Returns &
·         Availability of ITC
 
1. Registration: -New registration has to be taken within 30 days of the appointment of the IRP/RP in respect of said class of persons, in each & every States /UTwhere the corporate debtor was registered earlier since they will be treated as a distinct person of the corporate debtor.
However, where the IRP/RP has been appointed prior to the date of this notification, he shall take registration within 30 days from the commencement of this notification,
This has been done to overcome the ruling of High Court wherein it was held that the units working under this scheme shall be allowed to file returns without filing earlier period returns. Now, since they have to obtain new registration then they need not to file the returns for the earlier period.

2.Filling of Returns: -After obtaining new registration they shall have to file the first returnunder section 40 of the GST Act which states from the date on which he becomes liable to registration till the date on which registration has been granted. As already narrated, these provisions have been brought to implement smoothly the High Court verdict.

3.Availability of ITC: - (A) While filing their first return, said persons shall be eligible to avail ITC on the invoices received since his appointment as IRP/RP but bearing the GSTIN of the erstwhile registered person, bounded by the conditions of Chapter V (rules relating to ITC from Rule 36- Rule 45) except the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 16 of the said Act and sub-rule (4) of rule 36 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Section 16(4) prescribes the time limit of taking of credit and Rule 36(4) prescribes limitation of taking extra credit of 10% of invoices shown in GSTR-2A.

(B) Registered persons who are receiving supplies from the said class of persons shall, be eligible to avail input tax credit on invoices issued using the GSTIN of    the erstwhile registered person for the period from the date of appointment of IRP / RP till the date of registration as required in this notification or 30 days from the date of this notification, whichever is earlier subject to the conditions of Chapter V of the said Act and the rules made thereunder, except the provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 36 of the said rules.

A point worth to be noted here is that the time limit for availing the ITC as prescribed by Sec 16(4) shall not be applicable and the newly registered IRP/RP can avail the ITC after the time limit for the month of September or the filing of date of Annual Return too. Moreover, the limitation for the availment of ITC as per Rule 36(4) subject to 20% (now 10%) shall also not be applicable to the said class of persons.

  • Refund shall also be granted on the amount deposited in the cash ledger by the IRP/RP, in the existing registration, from the date of appointment of IRP/RP to the date of registration in terms of this notification.

The discussion relating to the Circular No.13 CT dated 23rd March shall be discussed in the Next Part.
To be continued……

This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

Post a Comment
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