Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON LANDMARK JUDGMENT ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF ITC NOT REFLECTED IN REVISED ST-3 BY FILING TRAN-1 - 013/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON LANDMARK JUDGMENT ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF ITC NOT REFLECTED IN REVISED ST-3 BY FILING TRAN-1 - 013/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON LANDMARK JUDGMENT ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF ITC NOT REFLECTED IN REVISED ST-3 BY FILING TRAN-1
 
We have come across number of decisions allowing the benefit of carrying forward the credit in GST regime on account of various technical glitches occurred in filing of TRAN-1 by various High Courts. However, recently, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S DEENDAYAL PORT TRUST VERSUS UNION OF INDIA rendered a landmark judgment wherein the carry forward of cenvat credit was allowed to the assessee under section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 even if certain cenvat credit was missed to be reflected in the revised ST-3 return filed on the aces portal. This decision is important as the Hon’ble High Court has provided substantial relief by allowing carry forward of the cenvat credit by concluding that reflection of such cenvat credit in the ST-3 return is only a procedural lapse. The decision is discussed in detail as follows:-

In the given case, the petitioner stated that after filing ST 3 return for the period April 2017 to June 2017, it was realized that there were certain invoices pertaining to the said period which remained unaccounted and consequently, ITC involved in such invoices could not be claimed in the return of service tax in Form ST­3. The petitioner filed revised Form ST­3 on 17.09.2017, wherein ITC of Rs.6,94,19,228/­ was claimed on ACES portal.

Thereafter, it was further realized that some more invoices remained unaccounted and ITC involved therein amounting to Rs.99,46,810/­ was left out even in the revised return in Form ST­3. The petitioner, therefore, again tried to file second revise return so as to claim correct amount of ITC. The online ACES did not permit the petitioner to file revised return for the second time. The petitioner, therefore, could not claim the ITC to the tune of Rs.99,46,810/­. However, petitioner did informed Assistant Commissioner vide letter about such additional claim of ITC.
The petitioner claimed correct amount of ITC being Rs.7,93,66,038/­ (i.e. Rs. 6,94,19,228/­ + as per revised return Form No. ST­3 + Rs.99,46,810/­ being the ITC which was not permitted to be claimed by filing second revised return on the ACES portal in GST Tran 1).

The revenue authorities claimed that provision of Rule 7B of the Rules­ 1994 provides option to the assessee to correct a mistake or omission within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the return under rule 7. Therefore, the assessee cannot keep on filing the revised return again and again because once option of revising return is exercised, the ACES portal would not allow the petitioner to revise the revised return again.

On one hand, when the ACES Portal did not permit the petitioner to file revised return for the second time due to which the claim of ITC to the tune of Rs.99,46,810/­ was not reflected in the last return in Form ST­3 filed by the petitioner and on the other hand, when the petitioner entered the correct amount of ITC including the amount of Rs.99,46,810/­ in Form Tran­1 while claiming the ITC under CGST­2017, there is no mechanism whereby such claim can be verified by the system and as such there is difference in amount of ITC in the form of ST­3, in the system and the Form Tran­1 which is filed by the petitioner.

The Court said that differential amount of ITC of Rs.99,46,810/­ cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of technical glitches not permitting the petitioner to file second revised return within the prescribed time period, as there is no prohibition as per Rule 7B of Rules­ 1994 to file revised return more than one time to revise return filed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1994 within stipulated period under Rule 7B of the Rules­1994.

ACES portal not allowing the petitioner to revise the Form ST­3 for the second time within prescribed period resulting into technical glitches is contrary with the provisions of Rule 7B of Rules 1994.

For the foregoing reasons, the Hon’ble High Court directed the revenue authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for the amount of ITC of Rs.99,46,810/­ manually under Rule 7B of the Rules­ 1994, so as to enable the petitioner to take advantage of the order dated 07.02.2020 to revise the Form Tran­1 to be filed online on or before 31.03.2020.

The above decision sets a milestone as regards the favourable decisions pertaining to technical glitches is concerned as it granted benefit to the petitioner on account of technical glitch on the erstwhile aces portal not allowing the assessees to revise ST-3 return second time while there was no such restriction in Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is worth noting that this decision can be correlated to the present restriction imposed by the GST portal on filing GSTR-3B wherein the return cannot be filed without payment of taxes. However, there is no such restriction in CGST Act, 2017 that for filing returns under GST, payment of taxes is pre-requisite. Therefore, one can perceive that the above decisions will be a useful precedent for availing various benefits which are being denied to the assessees due to technical glitches on the portal. Another important analogy of this decision is substantive right cannot be lapsed due to technical breaches. This is very important that procedural requirements cannot take away the substantive right

This is a landmark judgement for the assessee directing the department that no taxpayer should be deprived of his constitutional right of claiming unavailed credit due to technical glitches of any portal.

This is solely for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at our facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ and follow us on twitter https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

Post a Comment
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