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 IBC,2016- Part 2

GST UPDATE - Notification 11/2020 dated 21st March 2020 & Circular 134/04/2020 dt 23rd March 2020 & relating to the Companies Covered under the IBC,2016- Part 2

 

In our earlier update, we have discussed special procedures Notified by CBIC vide Ntfn.No.11/2020 related to Registration, Filing of Returns & the availability of ITC which are to be followed by the Companies vis. Corporate Debtors who are undergoing the CIRP process and the management of whose affairs are being undertaken by IRP/RP.

The present update seeks to discuss Circular no.134/04/2020 dt 23rd March 2020 where the CG has clarified certain issues relating to the Companies under IBC Code 2016. The update is hereby divided in two parts i.e. issues arising before and during CIRP period:-

Issues during Pre-CIRP Period

Issue- Recovery of dues under GST for pre-CIRP period

Clarification-The circular clarified that no coercive action can be taken against the entity (vis. Corporate debtor) with respect to the dues for Pre-CIRP period. However, the proper officer may file the claims before the NCLT which are termed as operational debt as per the provisions of IBC. They shall seek the details of supplies made / received and total tax dues pending from the corporate debtor to file the claim before the NCLT. But there is no provision in GST law in this regard. Is the circular is enough to enforce the same. The provisions should have been incorporated to this effect in GST law. As we have seen that the circulars are not binding. Or else, we can assume that the IBC has superseding effect on provisions of GST law. But the provision should have been incorporated to end the disputes.

“Operational Debt is debt may arise out of provision of goods or services or dues arising out of employment or dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Centre/State Government”.

Moreover, a moratorium period may be imposed under IBC, wherein the institution of suits /pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor is prohibited.

 

Issue- Should the GST registration of corporate debtor be cancelled?

Clarification-No, the GST registration shall not be cancelled of an entity for which CIRP has been initiated. The proper officer may suspend the registration. In case the registration of an entity undergoing CIRP has already been cancelled and it is within the   period of revocation of cancellation of registration, it is advised that such cancellation may be revoked. Again there is no law provision in GST to do so. How a department officer will keep this pending without a legal backing? Whether GST portal will support the same? These questions should be answered and portal should be amended to do this exercise.

 

Issue- Filing of returnsby IRP/RP of pre-CIRP period

Clarification-As per the provisions of the IBC Code 2016 the IRP/RP is not under an obligation to comply with all legal requirements for period before the Insolvency Commencement Date, therefore, not liable to file returns of pre CIRP period.

But the portal does not support the same and as such IRP was not able to file the returns for next period without filing earlier period returns. Even the High Court has held that it should be allowed to file the same without filing earlier period returns. But portal cannot be operated on the individual basis. Hence, it has been provided that IBC will take a separate registration and file the returns in its new registration. Hence, a way out of new registration has been introduced so that IRP/RP can file the returns.

 

During the CIRP Period

 

Issue-Should a new registration be taken by the corporate debtor during the CIRP period?

Clarification-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 notification 11/2020 dt.21st March 2020, he shall take registration within 30 days from the commencement of this notification i.e. up to 20th April 2020.

But earlier separate registration was granted only when the assesee has different business vertical. However, there will not be different business vertical as the same business is being run by IRP/RP. Moreover, now the registration can be granted at different locations of a person within same state. But here also, no different location exists. But the notification has provided that new registration will be allowed to him under special procedure.

 

 

Issue-How to file First Return after obtaining new registration?

Clarification-The IRP/RP will be liable to furnish first return under Sec 40 for            the period beginning the date on which it became liable to take registration till the date on which registration has been granted. The IRP/RP will also be liable to make payment of tax, file the returns and comply with all the provisions of the GST law during CIRP period.

 

Issue-How to avail ITC for invoices issued to the erstwhile registered person in case the IRP/RP has been appointed before issuance of Notification No.11/2020 - Central Tax, dated 21.03.2020 and no return has been filed by the IRP during the CIRP?

Clarification-The special procedure vide notification No.11/2020 - Central Tax, dated 21.03.2020issued under section 148 of the CGST Act has provided the manner of availment of ITC while furnishing the first return under section 40.We have already discussed this procedure in our previous part of update. This exception is made only for the first return filed under section 40 of the CGST Act.

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

 

 

Issue-How to avail ITC for invoices by persons who are availing supplies from the corporate debtors undergoing CIRP, in cases where the IRP/RP was appointed before the issuance of the notification No.11/2020 - Central Tax, dated 21.03.2020?   

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

Again it will be interesting to see that invoice showing different GST number as well as GSTR-2A showing different GST number, the credit will be allowed. Even it will be very difficult for the assesee claiming credit. The accounting software will have the GST number as shown in invoice and GSTR-2A is showing different GST number under which IRP/RP has filed the return. It will be very difficult to reconcile the GSTR 2A.

Issue-Some of the IRP/RPs has made deposit in the cash ledger of erstwhile registration of the corporate debtor. How to claim refund for amount deposited in the cash ledger by the IRP/RP?

Clarification- Any 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 notification No.11/2020 specifying the special procedure for corporate debtors undergoing CIRP, shall be available for refund to the erstwhile registration under the head refund of cash ledger, even if the relevant FORM GSTR-3B/GSTR-1are not filed for the said period.

Now, if the IRP/RP has filed the return for this period and this cash is adjusted then how the refund will come. Moreover, IRP/RP has to file again returns as per provision of notification as well as circular then whether the payment will be made twice? There is no clarification on this issue. It only says that they have to file return.

Further, it is not clarified that whether the IRP/RP will have to pay interest for the period. This will be clear from example. Suppose, this unit deposited the tax of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash ledger of old registration. Now IRP/RP takes new registration and filed refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- . Unless this amount is received, IRP/RP does not file return in new registration. Now this refund is received in month of June. Now, IRP/RP will deposit this amount in new registration and file return. But the registration will ask for late fee and interest whereas there is no fault on the firm part as they have paid the tax. When it is going to be declared as insolvent and suffering from financial difficulty then how they will pay interest and late fee?

The instructions contained in Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dt. 18.11.2019 stands modified to this extent.

 

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.

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