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 THAT IGST REFUND NOT ADMISSIBLE WHEN HIGHER DRAWBACK CLAIMED

GST UPDATE ON CLARIFICATION THAT IGST REFUND NOT ADMISSIBLE WHEN HIGHER DRAWBACK CLAIMED

GST UPDATE ON CLARIFICATION THAT IGST REFUND NOT ADMISSIBLE WHEN HIGHER DRAWBACK CLAIMED:-

CBIC has recently issued circular no. 37/2018-Customs dated 09.10.2018 wherein it has been clarified that IGST refund have not been granted in cases where higher drawback has been claimed. In this context, it is worth observing that there were two types of drawback rates upto 30.09.2017, one with cenvat facility denoted as ‘B’ and the other without cenvat facility denoted as ‘A’. If an assessee opted for drawback rate specified under ‘B’, it meant that lower rate of drawback was claimed which pertained to customs portion only as the credit of Central Excise Duty and Service Tax had been availed by the assessee. Thereafter, with effect from 01.10.2017, the drawback rate was merged with only one rate which is limited only to the refund of the customs duty. It is also pertinent to note that since the drawback is granted only with respect to central excise and service tax portion, the credit that is to be denied is only that of Central Laws. This has also been clarified vide Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 wherein it is stated that a supplier availing of drawback only with respect to basic customs duty shall be eligible for refund of unutilized input tax credit of central tax / State tax / Union territory tax integrated tax / compensation cess. It is further clarified that refund of eligible credit on account of State tax shall be available even if the supplier of goods or services or both has availed of drawback in respect of central tax. Although the above circular is issued in context of refund of accumulated input tax credit, its ratio is equally applicable in the present discussion.

In context of the recent circular issued wherein it is stated that refund of IGST shall not be admissible if the higher rate of drawback is being claimed, it is submitted that such a condition is very irrational. It is submitted that as stated above, refund of SGST credit is admissible even if higher drawback is claimed. Consequently, there may be possibility that there is sufficient balance of SGST available with the assessee and the goods can be exported on payment of IGST by utilising SGST credit balance. In such cases, there should be no embargo in claiming the refund of IGST paid by utilising SGST credit balance. Even otherwise, an assessee may have huge credit balance on account of transitional credit or on account of purchase of capital goods. In such cases, there is no rational in imposing restriction as regards export on payment of IGST. Accordingly, the restriction of simultaneous availment of higher drawback along with refund of IGST paid on exports should be re-looked by the government. Even this was allowed in Central Excise Regime also. Rajasthan High Court has allowed higher rate of drawback along with rebate claim in case of Iscon Surgicals Limited [2016(344)ELT 108(Raj.)]

Another point that is relevant is that the circular even puts restriction on claiming refund of IGST paid on export goods if the higher and lower rate of drawback on certain goods were identical. This is for the reason that it is presumed that if the drawback rate under category ‘A’ and ‘B’ are same, it means that drawback has been granted of central excise and service tax portion too. This is very absurd as the benefit of refund of IGST is being denied outrightly to the assessees who have availed the benefit of such drawback rate.
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