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 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