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 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF NOTIFICATION EXTENDING DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN FOR MAY, 2020 68/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF NOTIFICATION EXTENDING DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN FOR MAY, 2020 68/2020-21
The government is trying its best to provide relaxations to the trade and industry and has lowered the rate of interest on delayed payment of taxes and has extended the due date of filing return for the month of May, 2020 vide Notification No. 36/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020 by way of insertion of provisos.  The present update seeks to discuss the manner of amending the notification no. 29/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020 and the issue of interest liability for the month of May, 2020.
 
The Notification No. 36/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020 has inserted three provisos to provide the due date of filing return GSTR-3B by the assessees for the month of May, 2020. The third proviso, being inserted states that the GSTR-3B shall be furnished electronically on or before 27th June, 2020 for assessees having aggregate turnover of more than Rs. 5 Crores in the previous financial year. Thereafter, the fourth and fifth proviso prescribes the due date for assessees having aggregate turnover of upto Rs. 5 Crores in the previous financial year on the basis of States as 12th July, 2020 and 14th July, 2020. Now, coming to the notification no. 29/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020 prescribing due dates of GSTR-3B for the month of April, 2020 to September, 2020. The said notification stated that GSTR-3B should be filed on or before the 20th day of the month suceeding such month. The first proviso and second proviso provides due date of filing GSTR-3B for assessees having aggregate turnover upto Rs. 5 Crores in the previous financial year as 22nd day/24th day of the month suceeding such month. It is also worth mentioning that the paragraph no. 2 of this notification states that every registered person furnishing GSTR-3B shall make payment of taxes, not later than the last date as specified in the first paragraph on which he is required to furnish the said return.
 
Now, the question arises is whether the last date of payment of taxes as mentioned in the paragraph no. 2 of the Notification No. 29/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020 also stands modified in light of the amendment made in the due date of filing return for the month of May, 2020 vide Notification No. 36/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020? Well, in order to address this question, it is pertinent to refer to the meaning of paragraph vis a vis proviso in the notification.
 
As per the dictionary meaning of paragraph, it is a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering. Now, the question arises is that whether provisos inserted can be considered to be part of the first paragraph of the notification no. 29/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020? If we speak of legal language, the sub-sections of a section may contain provisos and while interpreting the particular sub-section, the proviso is also considered as part of the said sub-section. The proviso is indented or started with a new line but the exception it carves is to be applied to the said sub-section. Consequently, going by the numbering distinction, as the paragraph no. 2 is separately demarcated, the provisos of first paragraph would form part of first paragraph and so the last date of payment of taxes for the month of May, 2020 would be the due dates revised vide Notification No. 36/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020.
Therefore, in our opinion, no interest would be payable by the assessee if the taxes are paid by them after 20th June, 2020. This interpretation also holds good as when the original notification no. 29/2020-Central Tax dated 23.03.2020 was issued, then also, the assessees having turnover upto Rs. 5 Crores were not liable to pay interest for the period from 20th day of the suceeding month to the 22nd or 24th day of the suceeding month.
The intention of the government to extend the due date of return and payment of taxes for the month of May, 2020 is clear and obvious but the way the amendments are being carried out complicate the interpretation.

This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
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