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 REFUND RELATED ISSUES

GST Update on CLARIFICATION ON REFUND RELATED ISSUES


CLARIFICATION ON REFUND RELATED ISSUES
Various amendments have been made by the government by issuing several notifications and circulars on 31st day of December, 2018. In this update, we are discussing Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST dated 31st December, 2018 being issued to describe the change in mode of submission of refund claims and clarifications regarding various other issues.
1. Change in mode of submission of refund claims with jurisdictional proper officer-
• Till now taxpayers were required to file FORM GST RFD – 01A on the portal, generate the ARN and submit the documents physically in the office of jurisdictional officer. A modification has been made and all the documents, undertakings, statements required to be submitted along with the refund claim shall be uploaded on the portal at the time of filing of refund application. Further the invoices where the details are not found in GSTR-2A for the relevant period can as well be uploaded electronically at the time of filing of refund claim. The taxpayers still have the option to physically submit the application to the proper jurisdictional officer.
• The ARN shall be issued after the completion of the above process and acknowledgement shall be issued within 15 days from the date of generation of ARN. But the said acknowledgement or deficiency memo shall be issued manually by the tax officer.

2. Calculation of Refund amount for refund claim on account of inverted duty structure.
• The departmental officers were denying refund of ITC on inputs having equal or lower rate of GST as on Outward supply. But this circular has clarified that refund of unutilized ITC in case of inverted duty structure is available where ITC remains unutilized after setting off available ITC for the payment of output tax liability. Where there are multiple inputs attracting different rates of tax, in the formula provided in rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, the term “Net ITC‟ covers the ITC availed on all inputs in the relevant period, irrespective of their rate of tax. 
• Let’s understand this with the help of an example. Suppose in the manufacture of final Product A (Taxable @ 12%), we use two different inputs say input X (Taxable @ 5%) and input Y (Taxable @ 18%). Product A is sold at Rs. 5,000/- (the output liability shall be Rs. 600[5000*12/100]) and input X is acquired at Rs. 500/- (the credit amount shall be Rs. 25/-[500*5/100]) whereas input Y is purchased for Rs. 3500/- (the credit amount shall be Rs. 630/- [3500*18/100]). 
As per Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017- Maximum Refund Amount = (Turnover of Inverted Rated Supply of Goods and Services* Net ITC / Adjusted total turnover)- Tax payable on such inverted rated supply of goods and services. This equals to = {5000*(25+630)/5000}-600= Rs. 55 which is the maximum refund amount that is sanctionable.

3. Disbursal of refund amounts after sanction
• This circular advices the tax officers to issue the final sanction orders in FORM GST RFD-06 within 45 days of the date of generation of ARN. Section 56 of the CGST Act states that if any tax ordered to be refunded is not refunded within 60 days of the date of receipt of application, interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the refund amount starting from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of application (ARN) till the date of refund of such tax. Therefore, if the refund is not sanctioned within 60 days then the department is liable to pay tax payers interest @ 6%. Interest will be calculated starting from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application till the date on which the amount is credited to the bank account of the claimant.

4. Refund applications that have been generated on the portal but not physically received by jurisdictional tax offices
• Prior to the issue of this circular, many refund applications might have been filed on the portal but not submitted manually to the officers. This circular prescribes the procedure to be followed by the officers in such cases. It states that
a) All refund applications in which the amount claimed is less than the statutory limit of Rs. 1,000/- shall be rejected and the amount re-credited to the electronic credit ledger.
b) Where the refund amount in the application is greater than Rs. 1000/- has been claimed, a list of applications which have not been received in the jurisdictional tax office within a period of 60 days starting from the date of generation of ARN may be compiled. A communication may be sent to all such claimants on their registered email ids, informing that the application needs to be physical submitted to the jurisdictional tax office within 15 days of the date of the email. The claimant may be further informed that if he/she fails to physically submit the application within 15 days of the date of the email, the application shall be summarily rejected and the debited amount, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger.

6. ITC on invoices of earlier period availed in the subsequent period (say invoice has been raised in August but goods have been received in September, then the credit is claimed in the month of September) is to be taken into consideration for the calculation of refund of unutilized ITC filed for the subsequent month. In this regard circular clarifies that ITC of invoices issued in earlier period availed in subsequent period cannot be excluded from the calculation of the refund amount for the month of subsequent period.

7. This circular clarifies the term “Inputs” for the purpose of claiming refund under GST regime. Tax Authorities do not consider ITC on stores and spares, packing materials, materials purchased for machinery repairs, printing and stationery items, as part of Net ITC on the grounds that these are not directly consumed in the manufacturing process and therefore, do not qualify as input. It is clarified that ITC of GST paid on inputs shall be available to a person as long as he/she uses or intends to use such inputs for the purposes of his/her business and there is no specific restriction on the availment of such ITC. The GST paid on inward supplies of stores and spares, packing materials etc. shall be available as ITC as long as these inputs are used for the purpose of the business and/or for effecting taxable supplies, including zero-rated supplies, and the ITC for such inputs is not restricted under section 17(5) of the CGST Act. 
8. Refund of tax paid on input services and capital goods is not allowed in the case of refund of input tax credit accumulated on account of inverted duty structure. 
This is solely for the educational purpose.

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