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 on Amended Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 restricting carry forward of Cess

GST Update on Amended Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 restricting carry forward of Cess
 
GST Update on Amended Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 restricting carry forward of Cess:-
The carry forward of the balance of education cess and SHE cess in the GST regime has been a point of discussion for a long time. Although, we had explained in our earlier update that there is no legal prohibition in the CGST Act, 2017 as regards carry forward of the cenvat credit balance of education cess and SHE Cess, but the FAQs and tweets released by the government have unanimously held that it is not permissible to carry forward the balance of cess in the GST regime under section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is pertinent to mention that even the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited [2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 526 (A.A.R.-GST)] has held that the carry forward of accumulated credit by way of KKC appearing in service tax return is not allowed in the GST regime on the basis of FAQs released by the government. As there was no legal prohibition as regards carry forward of Cesses in the GST regime, the government came up with amendment in section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. The amended section reads as follows:- 
 
140. (1) A registered person, other than a person opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him under the existing law in such manner as may be prescribed:
 
Provided that the registered person shall not be allowed to take credit in the following circumstances, namely:—
 
(i) where the said amount of credit is not admissible as input tax credit under this Act; or
 
(ii) where he has not furnished all the returns required under the existing law  for the period of six months immediately preceding the appointed date; or
 
(iii) where the said amount of credit relates to goods manufactured and cleared under such exemption notifications as are notified by the Government.
 
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of sub-sections(1), (3), (4) and (6), the expression “eligible duties” means––
 
(i) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957;
 
(ii) the additional duty leviable under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
 
(iii) the additional duty leviable under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
 
(iv) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978;
 
(v) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985;
 
(vi) the duty of excise specified in the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; and
 
(vii) the National Calamity Contingent Duty leviable under section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001,
 
in respect of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock on the appointed day.
 
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (5), the expression “eligible duties and taxes” means––
 
(i) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957;
 
(ii) the additional duty leviable under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
 
(iii) the additional duty leviable under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
 
(iv) the additional duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978;
 
(v) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985;
 
(vi) the duty of excise specified in the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985;
 
(vii) the National Calamity Contingent Duty leviable under section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001; and
 
(viii) the service tax leviable under section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of inputs and input services received on or after the appointed day.
 
Explanation 3.- For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression ‘eligible duties and taxes’ excludes any cess which has not been specified in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2 and any cess which is collected as additional duty of customs under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;
It is submitted that the motive of the amendment in the above cited section is to disallow carry forward of cess balance in the GST regime. However, the amendment done by the government has given rise to more confusion and disputes in the days to come.
Firstly, we discuss the impact of including the word ‘eligible duties’ in section 140(1). As the erstwhile section 140(1) mentioned only cenvat credit, the meaning of which was to be taken according to Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which also included cesses, the addition of words ‘cenvat credit of eligible duties’ has been resorted to by the government. Now, the meaning of eligible duties as given in Explanation no. 1 and 2 of section 140 has also been amended so as to include reference of sub-section (1) in the same. However, the inclusion of reference of sub-section (1) seeks to bring absurd interpretation for the reason that the meaning of ‘eligible duties’ as given in the explanations was originally in the context of sub-section (3), (4) and (6) which pertained to credit admissibility on stock of inputs, semi-finished goods and finished goods as on appointed day. Similarly, explanation 2 specifying meaning of eligible duties in the context of sub-section (5) pertained to credit of goods/input services in transit. However, the government while adding reference of sub-section (1) in the said explanations, that too retrospectively, has forgotten this vital aspect which has huge ramifications for the assessees. It is submitted that the meaning of eligible duties in the explanation 1 clearly states that it is with respect to inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock on the appointed day but the sub-section (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 pertains to carry forward of balance of cenvat credit in the return filed by the assessee. This is the major point to ponder as one may interpret that this amendment seeks to restrict carry forward of the cenvat credit of eligible duties of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semi-finished goods or finished goods held in stock on the appointed date. Say for example- if the total cenvat credit to be carried forward in the return is Rs. 20,00,000/- but the closing stock available with the assessee reflects cenvat credit of Rs. 12,00,000/- only, then in that case, whether the assessee will be allowed to carry forward cenvat credit only to the extent of Rs. 12,00,000/-? This situation may arise due to many reasons including if the rate of tax on output is less than rate of tax on inputs in Excise and Service Tax regime. Not only this, the bifurcation of the cenvat credit according to the closing stock and exclusion of cesses will be a complex activity. It is submitted that though the intention of the government is not to restrict carry forward of cenvat credit to the extent of stock but the meaning of eligible duties definitely indicates so.
We also wish to point that the reference of sub-section has been included in both the explanations thereby leading to two questions as follows:-
  1.  Whether the carry forward of balance of service tax credit is allowable? This is for the reason that there is no mention of service tax in the meaning of eligible duties given in Explanation no. 1 whereas in Explanation no. 2, service tax leviable in respect of inputs and input services received on or after the appointed day is being mentioned and not that accumulated in the erstwhile regime. Since there is no specific mention of service tax in either of the explanations, can it be presumed that the assessees have wrongly carried forward their service tax credit balance in the GST regime?
  2. Another question that arises is which of the explanation is required to be referred for the meaning of eligible duties for sub-section (1)? Both the explanations provide meaning of eligible duties and both the explanations have reference of sub-section (1) of section 140. Moreover, certain duties such as excise duty is appearing in both the explanations. 
 It is submitted that the amendment in section 140 was made with a view to settle down issues cropping in the GST regime but the manner in which amendment has been done has led to more anomalies in the drafting of GST Law. As such, the government should resolve the confusion created by the amendment made in section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017.  
We hope the above is useful to you. This update 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