Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON FILING OF ITC-04

GST UPDATE ON FILING OF ITC-04

GST UPDATE ON FILING OF ITC-04
We submit that the due date for filing of ITC-04 is Oct 25, 2017. We further submit that GST ITC-04 is the quarterly return for submitting the details of goods sent to job worker and received back therefrom or sent to another job worker. This has been prescribed in section 143 of CGST Act, 2017 read with rule 45 of CGST Rules, 2017. However, the offline utility for ITC-04 was made available on the common portal in the evening on 23.10.2017 whereas the online facility was made available on the common portal only on 25.10.2017, being the due date of filing ITC-04. In our opinion, the due date of filing ITC-04 shall be extended so that the assessees are saved from the glitches of haphazard filing of return at the last moment. Not only this, appropriate notification should be issued for waiving initiation of any penal action against the assessees for delay in filing ITC-04 for the quarter July, 2017 to September, 2017.

Apart from the request of extension of the time limit for filing ITC-04 for the quarter July, 2017 to September, 2017, we also wish to highlight certain anomalies in the details required to be submitted in ITC-04 by the job-workers as follows:-
1. The offline utility does not allows to give reference of job work challans issued prior to 01.07.2017 as the requirement to file ITC-04 is only for goods sent to job-work during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2017. However, there is possibility that the goods sent for job work prior to 01.07.2017 are received back in July, 2017 to September, 2017 or are being sent to another job worker in July, 2017 to September, 2017. In such a situation, the assessee is unable to reflect the details of receipt of job-worked goods or the details of goods sent to another job-worker in the ITC-04 filed by them. A suitable clarification in this regard should be issued as to whether the details of goods sent prior to 01.07.2017 and received subsequently in the GST regime are to be reported in ITC-04 or not.
2. The offline utility also has discrepancy in mentioning the original challan date. The excel sheet depicting details of goods sent for job-work by manufacturer to the job worker mentions the month of July in the challan dates whereas the sheet pertaining to the details of goods received from job worker or sent out from business place of job work mentions the month of August in the original challan date column. The excel sheet pertaining to goods sent from job worker to manufacturer mentions ‘original challan date’ but the information thereon mentions the month of August which is totally wrong. A suitable clarification as regards the meaning of ‘original challan date’ in the excel sheet pertaining to goods sent from job worker to manufacturer should be issued in order to resolve the confusion.
3. There is also no mechanism of reporting in cases where 5 different inputs are sent to job worker which are being used in the manufacture of job-worked goods. To illustrate, if 5 inputs being A, B, C, D and E are being sent to job-worker for manufacturing a product being X, then there is no mechanism for reporting the details of inputs contained in the job-worked goods. It is possible that different proportion of inputs is being used for manufacturing product X and it is also possible that the job-worked goods are received back in lots. Say for example, if 50 Kgs of each inputs is being sent to job-worker to manufacture 75 Kgs of finished product being X, and if the finished products are being received in the lots of 25 Kgs by the principal manufacturer. In such a situation, the mechanism of reporting the goods sent to job-worker and that received back is not at all clear and it is not understandable as to how to report such transactions in ITC-04.
4. There is also no mechanism of reporting cases where a particular quantity of inputs is being sent to job-worker for job work and the job-worked goods are being received back in installments by the principal manufacturer. Say for example, if 100 Kgs of inputs are sent to job worker and the job-worked goods are received in the lots of 20 Kgs. In such a situation, whether reference of original challan is to be given multiple times in the excel sheet pertaining to details of goods received back from the job-worker? A suitable clarification should be issued in this regard for reporting of goods received from job-worker in installments.
5. There is also no clarity as regards the value to be shown in the details of goods received back from job-worker. There is no method to ascertain the value of job work goods since these are not being sold. It might be possible that these job work goods are further used in manufacture of final product. Hence, a suitable clarification should also be issued in this regard.

We have pointed out the practical problems being faced by the assessees in reflecting the details of goods sent to job-worker and received back from the job-worker. We hope that suitable clarifications regarding technical problems being faced in reporting of ITC-04 are issued at the earliest possible.

You can visit us at www.capradeepjain.com , our facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/… and our twitter account at @capradeep21

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