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 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