Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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