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 LACK OF PROVISIONS FOR RECOVERY OF TRANSITIONAL CREDIT 60/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON LACK OF PROVISIONS FOR RECOVERY OF TRANSITIONAL CREDIT 60/2020-21

 

The saga of carry forward of erstwhile credit into the GST regime is being still continued, even at the time when we will be celebrating 3rd Anniversary of GST in the coming month. The transition of credit pertaining to erstwhile laws has not been smooth enough and the inability to file prescribed TRAN-1 within the stipulated time period is being disputed with relief provided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. However, the dispute has not end in light of the retrospective amendment made in section 140 and the decision of Delhi High Court being challenged before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in the present update we will discuss the provisions that will be invoked by the revenue authorities in case where wrong credit has been availed as “transitional credit” under the GST regime.

 

Before discussing the provisions of section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017, it is pertinent to discuss certain provisions relating to transitional credit. The first and foremost question is whether the “transitional credit” availed by the assessees under GST regime is to be construed as “input tax credit” as the procedural mechanism available on the GST portal merges the erstwhile credit of Central Excise and Service Tax as “Central Tax” and the VAT credit as “State Tax” and the transitional credit becomes the part of the common pool of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger on the GST portal. It is observed that in GST Law, it is possible that utilities available on GST portal and the provisions of Act are not in consonance with each other and so reference is required to be made to the definition of input tax credit as stated in section 2(63)  of the CGST Act, 2017 according to which “input tax credit” means the credit of input tax. Furthermore, the term “input tax” is defined in section 2(62) of the CGST Act, 2017 as follows:-

(62) “input tax” in relation to a registered person, means the central tax, State tax, integrated tax or Union territory tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both made to him and includes—

 

(a) the integrated goods and services tax charged on import of goods;

(b) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 9;

(c) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;

(d) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 9 of the respective State Goods and Services Tax Act; or

(e) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act,

 

but does not include the tax paid under the composition levy;

 

On perusal of the above definition, it is clear that transitional credit is not to be considered as “input tax credit” under GST Law. In this context, in order to further substantiate this point, reference may be made to clarification issued vide Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 wherein it has been clarified in paragraph no. 50 that the transitional credit pertains to duties and taxes paid under the existing laws and so the same cannot be said to have availed during the relevant period so as to consider it as part of “Net ITC” and so no refund of unutilised transitional credit is admissible under section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

 

Therefore, it is clear that transitional credit is not “input tax credit” as per GST Law. Now, the question arises is whether the provisions of section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be invoked for demanding wrongly availed transitional credit? In this respect, it is worth noting that the provisions of section 73/74 pertain to determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised. It is submitted that when the transitional credit is not considered as “input tax credit” under GST Law, then whether the provisions of section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be invoked for demanding and recovering wrongly availed transitional credit? If answer is No, then whether the show cause notice for demanding wrongly availed transitional credit will be issued under erstwhile laws? Well, when the credit of erstwhile regime merges into the common pool of CGST and SGST in the electronic credit ledger after filing TRAN-1 and assumes the character of CGST and SGST, issuance of show cause notice under erstwhile laws would also be challenging task for the revenue authorities as utilisation of such wrongly availed transitional credit is in GST regime. One may argue that revenue authorities may certainly raise demand for short payment of tax if the said wrongly availed transitional credit has been utilised.

In this context, reference is also made to Rule 121 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which states that the transitional credit may be verified and proceedings under section 73 or section 74 shall be initiated in respect of any credit wrongly availed, whether wholly or partly. It is pertinent to mention that neither the section 73/74 nor the transitional provisions contained from section 139 to 142, expressly indicate that the wrongly availed transitional credit will be demanded and recovered under section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in the absence of statuary provisions in the Act for recovery provisions pertaining to transitional credit when the said credit is not covered by the term “input tax credit”, the viability of Rule 121 is certainly doubted. This is for the reason that the Rules are accessories to any law and provisions of Rule cannot go beyond the statutory provisions stated in any Law.  In our opinion, perhaps, this is drafting lacunae in section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017 which may be corrected by resorting to retrospective amendment.


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.

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