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 on certain issues related to Companies under IBC under GST Law vide Circular No. 138 /08/2020 dated 6th May 2020 #36/2020

GST Update on Clarification on certain issues related to Companies under IBC under GST Law vide Circular No. 138 /08/2020 dated 6th May 2020 #36/2020

In our earlier update also, we have discussed about certain clarifications made by CBIC vide circular  134 dated 23rd march 2020 where certain issues related to prior and post CIRP process was dealt and were resolved by the board and the compliance for taking registration for the IRP was also extended vide Notification 39/2020 dated 5th May 2020 till 30th June 2020 or within 30 days of the appointment of IRP whichever is later.

In this circular the board has clarified some pertinent issues which were represented before the Government as the compliance could not be done due to the current lockdown situations in the country.

One such problem which was being faced by the taxpayers was that the IRP/RP could not take registrations during the current scenario and it was requested to increase the time limit from present 30 days as obligatory under notification 11/2020 where it was made mandatory for the IRPP/RP to take a separate registration post their appointment in the said company as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

The board observed that such compliance burden could not be followed and the time limit for taking such registration was increased till 30th June 2020 or within 30 days of the appointment of IRP whichever is later. Only the time limit is extended but no relaxation on the registration provisions was given under notification no. 35/2020 dated 3rd April was given to any taxpayers. We would like to clarify that relaxations were not given to registration provisions under notification 35/2020. Hence, a new notification 39/2020 cited supra was issued to relax the provisions of registration.

In addition to the above problem , another issue that was put before the board was whether IRP would be required to take a fresh registration even when they are complying with all the provisions of the GST Law under the earlier GSTIN registration of Corporate Debtor i.e. all the GSTR-3Bs have been filed by the Corporate debtor / IRP prior to the period of appointment of IRPs and no default was done with respect to filing of returns  is concerned.

The board vide notification 39/2020 dated 5th May 2020 has inserted a proviso in the original notification 11/2020 dated 21st March,2020 where the relaxation was provided as to no registration is required for those IRP/RP where there is no compliance default done by the corporate debtors on account of furnishing of GST returns for all the tax periods prior to the appointment of IRP/RP.

In this regard, we would like to make it clear that the above amendment has come due to Delhi High Court decision in this matter wherein it was held that IRP/RP need not to file the old returns and they can file the returns onwards when petition in insolvency code has been filed. Now, there is no provisions in GST Rules to file new returns without filing old returns. To overcome this problem,  IRP/RP was allowed to take a new registration. We have prepared update on the same. In this update, we have raised this point also that if IRP/RP has already field the returns prior to this notification then whether they will file the return again? The extract of same update is enclosed herewith:- the cash ledger by the IRP/RP?

Issue-Some of the IRP/RPs has made deposit in the cash ledger of erstwhile registration of the corporate debtor. How to claim refund for amount deposited in the cash Ledger   by the            IRP/RP?
ClarificationAny amount deposited in the cash ledger by the IRP/RP, in the existing registration, from the date of appointment of IRP / RP to the date of notification No.11/2020 specifying the special procedure for corporate debtors undergoing CIRP, shall be available for refund to the erstwhile registration under the head refund of cash ledger, even if the relevant FORM GSTR-3B/GSTR-1are not filed for the said       period.
Now, if the IRP/RP has filed the return for this period and this cash is adjusted then how the refund will come. Moreover, IRP/RP has to file again returns as per provision of notification as well as circular then whether the payment will be made twice? There is no clarification on this issue. It only says that they have to file return.

We have raised this objection when notification was issued. Now, notification 11/2020 has been amended and it was told that there is no need to take new registration by IRP/RP when all returns have already been filed.

 

Another concern that was raised before the board was that in many of the cases appointment of IRP is not ratified and a different RP is appointed then in that cases whether the GSTN shall stand transferred to the new RP or he shall have to take all together a new registration under the GST Act.

This issue was clarified by the board  it is clarified that such a change would need only change of authorized signatory which can be done by the authorized signatory of the Company who can add IRP /RP as new authorized signatory or failing that it can be added by the concerned jurisdictional officer on request by IRP/RP.

 

 

This 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