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 ISSUES IN ANNUAL RETURN-PART-6

GST UPDATE ON ISSUES IN ANNUAL RETURN-PART-6

This update is in continuation of the series being prepared in respect of issues that will be faced by assessees in disclosure requirements of annual return format i.e. GSTR 9. We are hereby enlisting such issues-
1. One point for consideration is the reporting of debit notes/credit notes issued after end of financial year 2017-18 but pertaining to invoices issued during the financial year. Say for example, the assessee issued credit note of Rs. 5,000/- in the month of July. 2018 and reported the same in GSTR-1 of July, 2018 but the invoice for which credit note has been issued pertains to the month of January, 2018. Now, the question arises is that whether the credit note is required to be reported in the annual return? In this regard, the language of serial no. 10 and 11 is worth observing which reads as follows:-

10- Supplies/tax declared through amendments (+) (net of debit notes)
11-Supplies/tax reduced through amendments (-) (net of credit notes) 
However, issue arises of reporting the debit notes or credit notes that are issued not by way of amendment in earlier issued debit notes/credit notes but are freshly issued and reported in GSTR 1 for the months April 2018 to September 2018 but actually pertaining to financial year 2017-18. According to our opinion, the credit note issued in our example in the month of July, 2018 will be reflected in serial no. 11 of the annual return. However, according to some experts, the debit notes and credit notes issued after the end of financial year 2017-18 but reported till September 2018 would be reflected in serial no. 4I of the annual return filed for financial year 2018-19. 
2. Another point of consideration is the reflection of total refund claims filed and pending in serial no. 15 of the annual return. The heading simply mentions the particulars of demands and refunds and does not specify the period for which the disclosure is to be made. However, the instructions given below the format of annual return mentions reporting of aggregate value of all the refund claims filed in the financial year thereby meaning that the details of refund claim filed during the financial year only are to be reported. Say for example, if the refund of accumulated credit is filed for the month of January, 2018 in the month of July, 2018, the details of the refund would not form part of the serial no. 15 of the annual return for the financial year 2017-18. The details of the said refund would become part of annual return filed for the financial year 2018-19. The reporting is correct as the assessee can file refund claim before expiry of two years from the relevant date. Consequently, there should be provision for reporting the status of refund claims filed in the respective financial years irrespective of the fact that the refund claim actually pertains to another financial year.

3. Another issue that is worth observing is issuance of refund vouchers against an advance order cancelled and refunded back to the recipient. Online portal doesn’t provide a separate column for reporting of refund vouchers in GSTR 1. However, in such a case, logically the advance refunded on which tax has already been paid should reported under Column 11(B) - Adjustment of Advances in GSTR 1. As such, there is no clarity as regards reporting refund vouchers in GSTR-1. But according to instructions given in GSTR 9, any refund vouchers issued would be reflected in Table 4K and 4L . Ideally, if the annual return is to be filed in alignment with GSTR 1, then amount is already been adjusted in advances amount. Separate disclosure of refund vouchers in annual return would be an additional exercise.
These are though minor issues but can have major impact in filing of GSTR 9. One should be very cautious while disclosing amounts in correct tables. As the annual return is consolidated replica of GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B duly filed for the period July 2017 to March 2018, but correct disclosure in corresponding tables would be a mundane task.

This is solely for the 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