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 on adding Clarity to Carry Forward Of Input Tax Credit in the absence of invoices or similar documents.

GST update on adding Clarity to Carry Forward Of Input Tax Credit in the absence of invoices or similar documents.

Adding Clarity to Carry Forward Of Input Tax Credit in the absence of invoices or similar documents.

The proviso to Section 140(3) of CGST Act, 2017 allowed credit to traders who do not possess the duty paying documents. It reads as follows:-
“Provided that where a registered person, other than a manufacturer or a supplier of services, is not in possession of an invoice or any other documents evidencing payment of duty in respect of inputs, then, such registered person shall, subject to such conditions, limitations and safeguards as may be prescribed, including that the said taxable person shall pass on the benefit of such credit by way of reduced prices to the recipient, be allowed to take credit at such rate and in such manner as may be prescribed”

Thus, the credit was not restricted to condition that duty should have been paid on such inputs. The only condition attached is that the retailers should pass on the benefit of such credit to buyers. But the excise duty was not chargeable on the traders earlier but now the same will be chargeable to CGST. Hence the duty will increase and hence the price will go up. But on the contrary the provision says the price should reduce. There is contradiction in this provision.
However, the Rule 3 (a)(i) of Transitional Rules reads as follows:-

(ii) Such credit shall be allowed at the rate of [forty per cent.] of the central tax applicable on supply of such goods after the appointed date and shall be credited after the central tax payable on such supply has been paid.
(iii) The scheme shall be available for six tax periods from the appointed date.
(b) Such credit of central tax shall be availed subject to satisfying the following conditions, namely,-
(i) Such goods were not wholly exempt from duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or were not nil rated.
(ii) Document for procurement of such goods is available with the registered person.
(iii) Registered person availing this scheme and having furnished the details of stock held by him in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 1, submits a statement in FORM GST TRAN--- at the end of each of the six tax periods during which the scheme is in operation indicating therein the details of supplies of such goods effected during the tax period.
(iv) The amount of credit allowed shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of the applicant maintained in FORM GST PMT-2 on the Common Portal.
(v) The stock of goods on which the credit is availed is so stored that it can be easily identified by the registered person.

Hence there is condition in the Rule that such goods were not wholly exempt from duty of excise or were not nil rated. The inference from the same is drawn that the goods should be duty paid but the dealer should not have duty paying document. But this condition was very difficult for the dealers to comply with. He cannot produce the evidence that duty has been paid on these goods.
However, a new angle has been added to this analogy after the statement of Revenue minister Shri Hasmukh Adhia when he was questioned as to whether 40% is fair considering that excise duty paid at the manufacturing stage will be much more. Shri Adhia stated that Government has arrived at the ratio of 40% considering the fact that stock on transition date may also contain goods on which no excise duty would have been paid or very less duty would have been paid. Said ad-hoc formula is to be applied on total stock available on transition date.
Thus, on reading of Revenue Minister’s statement the inference is drawn that the credit of inputs will be allowed even though the duty is not paid on inputs. But there is clear cut provision in the Transitional Rules.
Now reading all three things together, one can reach to conclusion that the credit taken only on those inputs that were conditionally exempted from tax under existing laws however no input tax credit shall be allowed to be taken on the inputs that are unconditionally exempted. For example, the textile is not unconditionally exempt. The exemption notification 30/2004 grants exemption to textile fabrics with the condition that no cenvat credit is taken on inputs.

Visit us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/

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