Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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