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 INVERTED DUTY STRUCTURE REFUND FOR TEXTILE SECTOR- PART-2

GST UPDATE ON INVERTED DUTY STRUCTURE REFUND FOR TEXTILE SECTOR- PART-2

In continuation to our earlier update, we advance our discussion as regards the provision regarding lapse of credit pertaining to the month of July, 2018 for the textile industry by virtue of notification no. 20/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 with respect to refund of inverted duty structure on fabrics. We hereby analyse the feasibility of incorporating such restriction by the government.

We first discuss the manner of claiming refund of inverted duty structure by the assessees as given under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which prescribes formula for claiming such refund as follows:-
Maximum Refund amount= {(Turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services) * Net ITC /Adjusted Total Turnover} –tax payable on such inverted rated supply of goods and services. 
Furthermore, as per explanation, ‘Net ITC’ means input tax credit availed on inputs during the relevant period other than the input tax credit availed for which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both.

As it is clear from the above provisions, that the refund of inverted duty structure as per formula is admissible only with respect to input tax credit availed on inputs during the concerned period thereby meaning that the inputs availed in the month of July, 2018 would not be considered in the formula. Not only this, the refund is granted proportionately to the turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and as such, there is no need of any clause lapsing the credit of the month of July, 2018.

Moreover, even if the online application that is to be filed in form GST RFD-01 is observed, it is found that the refund is granted only of the lowest of the following:-
1. Amount as per formula
2. Balance in electronic credit ledger at the end of the tax period for which refund is claimed.
3. Balance in electronic credit ledger at the time of filing refund application.

It is submitted that since the refund admissible is the lowest of the above three amounts, the provision of lapsing the input tax credit has no relevance as such. This can be explained with the help of example-
Amount as per formula= {(20*50/100)-2}
= Rs. 8 Lakhs 
Balance of Electronic Credit Ledger during the month of July, 2018 = Rs. 40 Lakhs
Balance of Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of filing refund application during the month of August, 2018 = Rs. 58 Lakhs {40 Lakhs + 20 Lakhs – 2 Lakhs}

The amount of refund granted to assessee would be Rs. 8 Lakhs only as it is lowest. Therefore, even if the credit was not lapsed, the refund amount would have been as per formula only on the basis of credit availed during the month of August, 2018. As such, there was no need of lapsing the credit to the assessee.

Moreover, due to lapse of credit, the assessees would be at disadvantageous position than the new assessees starting business in the month of August, 2018. This is for the reason that the existing assessees would have to forgoe their credit and would have to clear their old stock by utilising credit of inputs received in August, 2018. This may also lead to two situations.
Firstly, he may have to pay duty in cash. In second situation where assessees are required to discharge their output liability by utilising credit thereby leading to deferment of refund claim on account of inverted duty structure. 
Furthermore, it is also not clear whether the credit balance of all assessees would lapse irrespective of the fact whether they claim refund of inverted duty structure or not. It is also worth mentioning that the job work units availing refund of inverted duty structure would also be at advantageous position as they will not be hit by the rigours of this notification. This is due to the fact that they are providing services of job work and are not dealing in Fabrics mentioned in the notification.

Nonetheless, the assessees will resort to manipulations in order to save their legitimately earned input tax credit and to overcome the adverse effect of this provision.

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