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 ON ANNUAL RETURN PART-3

GST UPDATE ON ANNUAL RETURN PART-3
In continuation to our earlier update on reporting of credit notes, we intend to discuss certain other issues with respect to disclosure requirement of credit notes in the annual return. We submit that it is being understood that financial credit/debit notes that do not impact GST are not to be considered while filing annual return and reconciliation statement. However, certain disclosure requirement in annual return leads to reflecting financial credit/debit notes too which is totally absurd.
The serial no. 5H of annual return requires disclosure of credit notes issued in respect of following supplies made by the assessee:-
• Zero rated supply (export) without payment of tax, 
• Supply to SEZ without payment of tax
• Supplies on which tax is to be paid by the recipient on reverse charge basis
• Exempted
• Nil rated
• Non-GST supply 
It is worth noting that serial no. 5 of Annual Return pertains to “Details of outward supplies on which tax is not payable as declared in returns filed during the financial year”. Hence, this serial pertains to outward supplies on which GST is not payable. Consequently, the adjustments made in such supplies on account of issuance of credit/debit notes will also not have any GST effect. In nutshell, we can say that credit/debit notes issued against such supplies are to be treated as ‘financial credit/debit notes’ that should not have any disclosure requirement. However, serial no. 5H and 5I of the Annual Return requires separate disclosure of such credit notes/debit notes. 
At this juncture, it is also worth pointing that while filing GSTR-1, Nil rated supplies are to be disclosed in consolidated manner as inter-state registered, inter-state unregistered, intra-state registered, and intra-state unregistered. The assessees are not required to submit invoice wise details in GSTR-1 for nil rated/exempted/non GST supplies. Moreover, if there is any amendment in the value of such supplies, the same is adjusted in the consolidated amount in the GSTR-1 for the next month. Say for example, if the intra-state exempted supply to registered person was originally reported as Rs. 10,000/- in the month of July, 2017. Thereafter, cash discount of Rs. 2,000/- was given by way of issuing credit note. The said adjustment was made in the GSTR-1 filed for the month of September, 2017 which had exempted intra-state supplies to registered person as Rs. 20,000/-. Consequently, Rs. 2,000/- was deducted from the value of supplies and net amount of Rs. 18,000/- was reflected in the GSTR-1 for the month of September, 2017. This example implies that this adjustment in value of exempted supply by way of issuance of credit note does not impact GST and is to be considered as financial credit note. However, the annual return requires separate disclosure in 5H which will be difficult for the assessees as net amounts are reflected in GSTR-1. The government should seriously consider the amendment in the disclosure requirement specified in 5H of the annual return in the interests of assessees. 
It is also pertinent to ponder upon another difficulty that will be faced by assessee exporting goods and issuing credit notes. It is worth noting that exports can be done either under LUT or on payment of IGST. However, in case of exports on payment of IGST, the assessee claims refund of IGST paid and the IGST has no impact on the foreign buyer as it is not charged from the foreign buyer. Consequently, even if credit note is issued, it partake the nature of financial credit note that should not be declared in the annual return. Moreover, if the credit note is issued after the assessee has received refund of IGST, the GST effect cannot be made in the credit note as if credit note along with GST effect is issued, it will lead to double benefit of claiming refund and availing credit which is not permissible. It may be noted that till date there is no mechanism for linking credit note issued with the custom portal as the option to provide credit note in case of exports on payment of tax does not require mention of shipping bill by assessee. Hence, the logic behind separate disclosure of credit notes issued with respect to exports made on payment of IGST is not understandable. It may be noted that while filing GSTR-1, unlike nil rated supplies, there is option to disclose credit notes issued for exports made without payment of tax and exports made with payment of tax. A suitable clarification as regards disclosure requirement of credit notes in serial no. 5H should be issued by the government at the earliest possible. 
This is solely for the 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