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 Clarification in respect of utilization of input tax credit under GST

GST Update on Clarification in respect of utilization of input tax credit under GST
 
Today we are sharing an update on the clarification issued by the department on order of utilization of input tax credit. As the provisions contained in section 49A and 49B of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 88A have been introduced, the provisions cannot be implemented due to absence of appropriate facility at the common portal. We had prepared an update on the same in which we have tried to explain in the simple manner the concerns addressed by the discussed communication.
 
 
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide its Circular No. 98/17/2019-GST dated 23rd April 2019, addressed the confusions created due to change in the order of utilisation of input tax credit. Although, the provisions contained in section 49A and 49B of the CGST Act, 2017 along with Rule 88A have been introduced but the provisions cannot be implemented due to absence of appropriate facility at the common portal. This has also led to confusion as regards the validity of the returns filed by assessees as the manner of utilisation of input tax credit is not in conformity with Rule 88A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Furthermore, important point to note is that whether the provisions contained in Rule can override the provisions contained in section 49A of the CGST Act, 2017 recently amended by the government. Well, as stated in our earlier update also, in GST era, the GSTN has precedence over the provisions contained in the Act or the Rules as even if the Rule 88A prescribes new mechanism for utilisation of input tax credit, the said mechanism cannot be adhered to unless and until the common portal is compatible with the amended provisions. Till date, the functionality to utilise credit as per the provision contained in Rule 88A is not operational on the common portal and so this circular clarifies that the assessee may continue the old method of utilisation of input tax credit which at least relieves the assessee from the fear of dispute with revenue authorities as regards mechanism of utilisation in future.
 
The order of utilisation of input tax credit is explained as follows:-
Input tax Credit on
account of
Output liability on account of
Integrated tax
Output liability of
Central tax
Output liability of State tax / Union
Territory tax
Integrated tax 1st 2nd  and 3rd – In any order among C & S  and in any proportion  between  them.
Central tax (only after completely using IGST) 5th 4th Not permitted
State  tax  /  Union
Territory tax (only after completely using IGST)
7th Not permitted 6th
 















It is to be noted here that the provision contained in Rule 88A is in line with the newly inserted section 49A of the CGST Act, 2017 which overrides the provisions of section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, it is only section 49 that states that the central tax should not be utilised for payment of State Tax/UT tax or vice versa. It is also worth noting that the provisions of section 49A overrides section 49 without any exception whereas provision of section 49B are notwithstanding anything contained in the Chapter but subject to clause (e) and (f) of section 49(5) which state that the credit of Central Tax cannot be utilised for payment of State Tax/UT tax or vice versa. Furthermore, it has not been specified that Rule 88A is being issued under section 49B of the CGST Act, 2017. Not only this, section 49B clearly states that the government may on the recommendations of the Council prescribe the order and manner of utilisation of input tax credit. However, the 34th GST Council Meeting exclusively discussed the changes to be made in the real estate sector.  Consequently, it can be inferred that since there was no express recommendation of GST Council for change in utilisation of input tax credit, Rule 88A has been issued in line with section 49A of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the Rule 88A goes one step ahead and grants choice to the assessee that the remaining balance of input tax credit on account of IGST can be utilised in any order for discharging liability of CGST/SGST/UTGST. Now, the moot question that arises is that is it permissible to change the manner of utilisation of input tax credit by granting discretion to the assessee regarding order of utilisation even when there is no such provision in section 49A of CGST Act? Another question that arises is whether the present clarification issued in the context of Rule 88A is binding on assessee and department both? It is submitted that the circulars issued by the board are binding on departmental authorities but the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of RATAN MELTING & WIRE INDUSTRIES [2008 (231) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.)]that circulars are binding on revenue authorities but they can challenge the said circulars if they are contrary to the statutory provisions contained in law. Well, as the provisions contained in Rule 88A grant liberty as regards order of utilisation of IGST credit between CGST/SGST/UTGST as per choice of assessee which is not backed by any statutory provision, the validity of Rule 88A and the clarification is surely doubted. Well, as far as the method of utilisation of credit is favourable to the assessee, there is no harm in following the same. But, as stated by us in the beginning of this update, it is an irony to see that neither the Act, nor the Rules prevail but what prevails is the Software of GSTN. Hence, the benefit of this new method of utilisation can be availed only after the said facility is operational on the common portal.  
 
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