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 Draft Circular on lapse of credit on account of inverted duty refund on fabrics

GST Update on Draft Circular on lapse of credit on account of inverted duty refund on fabrics
 GST Update on Draft Circular on lapse of credit on account of inverted duty refund on fabrics:-
 
The notification no. 20/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 was a matter of discussion for textile industry as this notification allowed refund of accumulation in input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure on fabrics on supplies received on or after 01.08.2018. We have prepared an update on the same. However, this notification also contained provision regarding lapse of accumulated input tax credit lying unutilised in balance after payment of tax upto the month of July, 2018. This provision regarding lapse of credit was foreseen as a very harsh and unjustifiable restriction. We have come across a draft circular regarding clarification on the provision introduced for lapse of input tax credit and we hereby discuss this provision in our present update.
 
Firstly, it is clarified that the restriction regarding lapse of credit does not applies for credit of input services and capital goods. Furthermore, it is clarified that this provision seeks to lapse only such input tax credit which has accumulated on account of inverted duty structure in respect of stated fabrics and that would have been refunded under section 54 for the period prior to 31.07.2018 if there was no restriction imposed by notification no. 05/2017-Central Tax (Rate). It is also clarified that for computing the amount of credit that will be lapsed, the formula as prescribed under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 would be applicable. The amount computed by the formula will be the input tax credit that would lapse. The calculation of the amount of input tax credit to be lapsed has been explained with the examples as follows:-
 
A manufacturer of manmade fibre fabrics has total turnover of Rs. 10 Crores during the period from July, 2017 to July, 2018. The GST payable at the rate of 5% was Rs. 50 Lakhs. The computation of amount of input tax credit to be lapsed as per the formula is explained in following cases:-
  1. Assuming that the net ITC availed with respect to inputs during the period was Rs. 60 Lakhs
  2. Assuming that the net ITC availed with respect to inputs during the period was Rs. 50 Lakhs
  3. Assuming that the net ITC availed with respect to inputs during the period was Rs. 40 Lakhs
The computations in the above mentioned situations are as follows:-
 (Net ITC* Turnover of inverted rated supply of goods/Adjusted Total Turnover)- Tax payable on such inverted rated supply of goods
In our example, the assessee only supplies manmade fabrics so the turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and adjusted total turnover is same.
The computation of amount of ITC to be lapsed in different situations is as follows:-
  1. (60*1000/1000)-50 = Rs. 10 Lakhs
  2. (50*1000/1000)-50 = Rs. 0
  3. (40*1000/1000)-50 = -10 Lakhs
It is submitted that only in situation (a), the ITC would lapse to the extent of Rs. 10 Lakhs. In situation (b) and (c), no ITC would lapse as there is no accumulation of ITC on account of inverted rated supply of goods.
 
It is also worth mentioning that the ITC pertaining to closing stock of finished goods and inputs as on 31.07.2018 is to be excluded for the determination of Net ITC for the purpose of applying formula with the result that the ITC pertaining to closing stock as on 31.07.2018 would not lapse. It has been clarified that the ITC relating to inputs contained in stock may be computed in the manner provided in serial no. 7 of Form GST ITC-01.
 
Lastly, it is also clarified that accumulated ITC in relation to exports will not lapse under this provision as separate refund is filed under Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
It is submitted that the above circular has not legal sanctity but it indicates the intention of the government to restrict assessees from availing the benefit of refund of accumulation of ITC on account of inverted rated supply of goods for the period prior to 01.08.2018. However, in our opinion, there was no need to introduce this restriction as the formula prescribed under Rule 89(5) takes into account only the credit availed during a particular month and does not considers the opening balance of ITC. As such, there was no requirement to lapse the ITC available as on 31.07.2018 after making payment of taxes for the month of July, 2018. Therefore, the provision has no practical implication as such. It is also worth noting that the provision regarding lapse of credit with respect to inverted duty refund on fabrics is not understandable as no such provision was introduced when refund of inverted duty structure was granted for other products such as utensils, umbrella manufacturers. These manufacturers have huge credit unutilised in Central Excise regime due to inverted duty structure but there was no refund available at that time. They are able to claim the refund of current period only. The unutilised credit is being carried forward.  Introducing such a provision only in case of fabrics is discriminatory.                                         

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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