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 Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018

GST Update on Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018
This circular has been issued by the government in order to clarify on certain issues pertaining to E-way bill in case of storing of goods in godown of transporter as prescribed in the Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018. This circular is being issued for small textile trader or processors who purchase the material but do not take delivery as there is scarcity of space in their premises. They keep the same in the godown of transporter. Later on, whenever the material is required then they take the delivery from the godown itself. But this practice was not allowed as per GST law. Hence they have sought the clarification from the CBIC.
The Government had received many representations for clarifications regarding the compliance of E Way Bill procedures if the goods are stored at the transporter’s godown on temporary basis. In this regard, the government has clarified that in case where consignee/ recipient taxpayer stores his goods in the godown of the transporter, then the transporter’s godown has to be declared as an additional place of business by the recipient taxpayer. The above interpretation has been adopted on the grounds of  Section 2(85) of the CGST Act that defines the “place of business” to include “a place from where the business is ordinarily carried out, and includes a warehouse, a godown or any other place where a taxable person stores his goods, supplies or receives goods or services or both”.
An additional place of business is the place of business from where taxpayer carries out business related activities within the state, in addition to the principal place of business. In our case since the recipient taxpayer is storing their goods in the godown of the transporter in the same city, hence this godown has to be declared as an additional place of business by the recipient.
The supplier of goods will send the goods to this small tax payer and will declare the godown of tax payer as destination as it is declared as additional place of business. The delivery will be concluded as and when it reaches the godown of transporter. Further, whenever the goods are taken from the transporters’ godown to the place of this small assessee, then challan for movement of goods from one premises of taxpayer to another godown of taxpayer along with e-way bill will be issued. The recipient taxpayer is also required to maintain records as per rules 56 and 57 of the CGST Rules at this godown also. However, the transporter is not required to follow any additional compliance requirements apart from those prescribed. But the problem comes when a number of such small traders have declared this premises as additional place of business. All these have to maintain records at same place. This does not seem to be feasible.
It is clarified in this circular that the above provisions would apply mutatis mutandis in the case where the supplier of the goods and the transporter are located within the same state.
 
 
But we have come across another situation like this only. In such situation, prior to introduction of GST, the factory owner used to send the unsold material to various locations in other states. This unsold material was kept with transporter. The agent of factory is told about same. Whenever the material was sold, the delivery was taken from transporter and handed over to purchaser. The bill was raised by factory owner afterwards.
This situation does not fit into the same. As the additional place of business can be added in the same state, but it is normally outside the state.  Hence, a separate registration is to be taken and this will act as depot of factory.
 As per Section 25 of CGST Act, 2017 which reads as follows:
(2) A person seeking registration under this Act shall be granted a single registration in a State or Union territory: Provided that a person having multiple business verticals in a State or Union territory may be granted a separate registration for each business vertical, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
Thus, on the basis of the interpretation of the above provision it can be concluded that the supplier is required to obtain a separate registration in a state for every state that he wishes to declare as an additional place of business. However, it is impracticable for the supplier to obtain separate registration for each and every state where the warehouse of the transporter of goods is located.
But taking registration of transporter godown is big task as ownership document or rent deed agreement is required.  Moreover, a number of factory owners used to keep their material with the same transporter but it is not feasible to take registration of same premises by number of persons. Hence, this practice has stopped and factory owner supplies the goods to specific clients only.
The government required to consider the cases where the unsold goods are kept by the supplier at the transporter’s godown in other state for further sale. It would be difficult for the supplier to abide by the compliance requirements of the law as this would lead to a substantial increase in the compliance costs.
Hence, the government is required to issue further clarifications on these matters.
 
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