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 Jharkhand High Court decision for no interest for tax paid under wrong head 135/2020-21

GST update on Jharkhand High Court decision for no interest for tax paid under wrong head 135/2020-21
There were lot of mistakes committed by the taxpayers during the initial years of GST implementation and one of common mistake was payment of tax under wrong head. Although, there is specific provision in section 77 of CGST Act, 2017 and section 19 of the IGST Act, 2017 that no interest shall be payable for payment of tax under wrong head by the assessee but the revenue department in the case of SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS (P.) LTD. [2020 (114) taxmann.com 302 (Jharkhand) had demanded interest for payment of tax under wrong head. Therefore, the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Jharkhand high court with respect to non-levy of interest on wrong payment of tax and allowing adjustment of excess tax paid by then. The analysis of the decision is the subject matter of discussion of the present update.
In this case, the petitioner, while filing GSTR-1 for the month September 2017, declared IGST liability amounting to Rs 7451127 under the IGST and Rs 268470 under the head CGST and SGST each. But while filing GSTR-3B for the same month, it mistakenly declared tax liability of Rs. 3252484.58 under the head IGST and Rs 4198643.71 under the CGST and GST head. This mistake of payment of tax under wrong head remained unnoticed for 1 year and subsequently, the petitioner Company was informed of the mistake during the course of audit by CERA and the petitioner was asked to pay the short paid IGST to the tune of Rs.41,98,842/- along with the interest.
The petitioner contends that tax was paid within time but paid under the wrong head due to some confusion in early year of GST implementation. This petitioner prayed that, it is bona fide mistake on his part and should be condoned by department.
The revenue contended that GSTR-1 was filed correctly by the taxpayer and so payment of taxes under wrong head in GSTR-3B does not indicate bonafides of the petitioner. Further, there is no provision for transfer / adjustment / utilization of paid tax from one head to the other head and accordingly, the provisions of section 77 of the CGST Act, or section 19 of the IGST Act, shall not be applicable in the present case. It was contended that the provisions of section 77 of CGST Act, 2017/ section 19 of the IGST Act, 2017 will not apply in the present case as the petitioner deliberately paid wrong taxes in GSTR-3B filed by them whereas reflected correct details in GSTR-1.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner Company had discharged their tax liability under the IGST head, but inadvertently the petitioner deposited the amount under the CGST head. It is not the case that the petitioner Company has concealed the transaction or has committed any fraud in discharging its tax liability. Further, the petitioner cannot be doubted as due to initial stage of GST regime, there is possibility of confusion as regards the correct head for deposition of tax. Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 41,98,642/-, under the IGST head and claim refund of the said amount paid in CGST head or adjust the excess amount against their future liabilities. The petitioner shall not be liable to pay any interest on the said amount.
The above decision indicates the pro-revenue approach of the officers inspite of clear cut provisions regarding no levy of interest on payment of tax under wrong head. The above decision loses relevance in the present time as now the GST portal offers inter head transfer of amount in the electronic cash ledger in case of mistake in deposition of tax under wrong head vide PMT-09 so there is no need to file refund claim by the assessees which is herculean task.
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 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
 
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