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 amendment of Section 140(1)

GST Update on amendment of Section 140(1)
Retrospective Effect of denial on credit of cess
The government has excluded the credit that taxpayers could avail at the time of transitioning to GST for the cesses paid in the previous indirect tax regime, according to amendments in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act moved in the Lok Sabha. The change in the amendment bill has been made effective from from July 1, 2017 i.e. retrospectively.
Prior to the amendment, many experts were of the view that this credit shall be carried forward as Section 140(1) didn't place a bar on transition of various cesses which were part of the Central Value Added Tax credit ledger of companies. Krishi Kalyan Cess, education Cess and secondary and higher eduction cess were included in the CENVAT credit ledger of companies.
Section 140 (1) of the CGST Act reads as follows-
“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 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:-
(1)where the said amount of credit is not admissible as input tax credit under this Act; or
(2) 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
(3)where the said amount of credit relates to goods manufactured and cleared under such exemption notifications as are notified by the Government”
As there was no specific restriction for transition of this credit under GST, many taxpayers took a view that the cess paid can be carried forward in the GST regime. But the FAQ released by CBIC clearly said that the balance of cess cannot be carry forward in GST regime. But many scholars opined against this FAQ and held that FAQ do not legal binding and its balance can be carried forward.
However,Authority of Advance Ruling pronounced in case of KANSAI Nerolac Paints Limited in favour of department wherein carry forward of credit in KKC of service tax has been denied. The head note of this decision read as under:-
GST - Migration - Cenvat credit - Carry forward of accumulated credit by way of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) appearing in Service Tax return of Input Service Distributor in electronic credit ledger maintained under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Admissibility as input tax credit - Insertion of sub-rule (1a) to Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allowing provider of output services credit of KKC on taxable services leviable under Section 161 of Finance Act, 2016 - Cenvat credit was available in respect of KKC - However it was to be utilised only towards payment of KKC - KKC cannot be treated as Excise duty or Service Tax and Cenvat credit as referred to in Section 140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would not include credit in respect of KKC - Non-availability of carry forward of credit with respect to KKC has been clarified to Trade in Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs - Accumulated credit by way of KKC as it appeared in Service Tax return of Input Service Distributor (ISD) on June 30, 2017 which was carried forward in electronic credit ledger maintained under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, will not be considered as admissible input tax credit.
 But after this amendment, there is no ambiguity and this credit will be denied after assent of these bills. The impact shall be that the taxpayers aren’t eligible to transfer the credit of various cesses, they may be required to reverse the credit they have availed. Even the department will demand the interest on the same.
Taxpayers may question the retrospective applicability of the proposed amendment.They may take the support in the landmark Income tax case of Vodafone Limited wherein the Government introduced a retrospective clarification to the Income-Tax (I-T) Act, 1961, virtually amending the law to ensure that cross-border transactions are taxable. There was all round protest against the Government in the international arena at that time and the Government has promised at that time that no retrospective amendment will be made in the tax law against the assessee.
But again retrospective amendment has been made against the assessee.  This will again prove that the Government is not keeping its words and amending the law retrospectively which affect badly the interests of the poor taxpayers.
Thus government shall consider the plea of the taxpayers and allow carry forward of credit of Cess.
 
The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.
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