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 interest liability on wrong availment of credit in gst regime part-15

GST Update on interest liability on wrong availment of credit in gst regime part-15
The present update discusses in detail about the interest liability on wrong availment of input tax credit under GST. Before proceeding to the provisions of interest under GST regime, it is pertinent to mention that in the erstwhile regime, interest was payable by the assessee only if the wrongly availed credit was utilised. In other words, the interest was not payable if the wrongly availed credit was not utilised by the assessee. Say for example, if the wrongly availed credit was Rs. 10,000/- and the assessee had balance of credit more than Rs. 10,000/- throughout the period, it was considered that the wrongly availed credit was not utilised and no interest was payable. However, the position under GST regime is different and interest is payable even if the wrongly availed input tax credit is not utilised as the provisions of section 73 and 74 pertain to recovery of input tax credit wrongly availed OR utilised along with interest. The use of word ‘OR’ denotes that interest is payable even if the input tax credit is not utilised as confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. [ 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3. (S.C.)]. The provisions contained in section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to interest under GST are discussed as follows:-

Section 50 – Interest on delayed payment of tax
(1) Every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, but fails to pay the tax or any part thereof to the Government within the period prescribed, shall for the period for which the tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate, not exceeding eighteen per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council.
(2) The interest under sub-section (1) shall be calculated, in such manner as may be prescribed, from the day succeeding the day on which such tax was due to be paid.
(3) A taxable person who makes an undue or excess claim of input tax credit under sub-section (10) of section 42 or undue or excess reduction in output tax liability under sub-section (10) of section 43, shall pay interest on such undue or excess claim or on such undue or excess reduction, as the case may be, at such rate not exceeding twenty-four per cent, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council.
Furthermore, the interest rates in GST regime have been prescribed vide Notification No. 13/2017 – Central Tax dated 28th June 2017, wherein the rate of interest under section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 is specified as 24% p.a.

Now, the question arises is whether every kind of wrong availment of input tax credit is covered by the provision of section 50(3) or not. If the provision contained in section 50(3) is examined, it is found that only excess or undue claim of input tax credit under section 42(10) or undue or excess reduction under section 43(10) of the CGST Act is liable to interest of 24% p.a. It is submitted that section 43(10) pertains to interest liability on undue or excess credit availment on account of non-matching of input tax credit as was proposed while introducing the GST law. It is pertinent to note that when GST law was implemented, concept of matching was proposed wherein input tax credit was available only if it matched with the corresponding outward supply furnished by the supplier. The mechanism of matching via GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 has not been implemented till date. Consequently, the provisions contained in section 42 are not relevant in the present context. This has the effect that as on date, there is no provision prescribing levy of interest for wrong availment of input tax credit for reasons other than matching. Say for example, in case where input tax credit of tax paid under reverse charge mechanism on specified services is wrongly availed or where the input tax credit has wrongly been carried forward in TRAN-1 under transitional provisions. In such situations, whether interest rate specified under section 50(3) could be considered to be applicable? Well, the answer is big NO.

It is submitted that although there is specific provision contained in section 50(1) for specifying rate of interest for delayed payment of GST, there is no explicit provision regarding levy of interest for wrong availment of input tax credit for reasons other than matching concept as proposed under section 40(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and not implemented till date. Therefore, the assessees may challenge the demand of levy of interest on wrong availment of input tax credit in Courts as there is no explicit provision for the same. However, logically it may not sound good that wrong availment of input tax credit would not attract any interest under GST regime and there will definitely be a huge tug of war between assessee and the revenue authorities on this issue in the days to come. 
The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation. 

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