Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON LANDMARK MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF CESSES INTO GST REGIME

GST UPDATE ON LANDMARK MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF CESSES INTO GST REGIME

The dispute as regards disposal of the balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess was ignited when the said cesses were scrapped by the government in 2015. This is for the reason that according to erstwhile provision contained in Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the cenvat credit of cesses could be utilised only towards payment of such cesses and when the levy of education cess and SHE cess itself was removed, the cenvat credit available of such cesses was also under dispute. This baggage of erstwhile litigation has crept into GST regime too as to whether the balance of education cess, SHE Cess is allowed to be carry forward in the GST regime? The government has from time to time indicated that it is not permissible to carry forward the balance of cesses into GST era and this is evident from the retrospective amendment made in section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to transitional credit and clarifications issued thereon. There are many Advance Rulings and decisions rendered by AAAR denying carry forward of cesses in GST regime, one of them being KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED [2018 (15) G.S.T.L.594 (AAAR-GST)]. However, this issue has also been litigated by the assessee before many High Courts and remains unsettled till date. The issue regarding carry forward of balance of cess is pending before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the Case of M/s GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2019(27) G.S.T.L. 322 (GUJ.)]. However, recently, Hon’ble Madras High Court has rendered a landmark decision allowing the carry forward of cesses into the GST regime after analysing the retrospective amendment made in section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. The said decision namely SUTHERHLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA is analysed in the present update.


 

Brief Facts:- The issue involved in this Writ Petition was admissibility of the carry forward of various cesses such as education cess, SHE Cess, KKC etc. into the GST regime in light of the retrospective amendment made in section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was contended by the petitioner that there is no provision of lapsing of credit of cesses accumulated in the cenvat register. It was also submitted that the provision of section 140(1) uses the expression “Cenvat Credit” having the same meaning as assigned in Central Excise Act, 1944 and rules thereunder and so the education cess, SHE cess are also covered by “cenvat credit” and should be transitioned in GST regime. It was also contended that the provisions of section 140(8) which pertains to assessees having centralised registration, uses the term “cenvat credit” and not “eligible credit”. Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on the Apex Court decision given in the case of EICHER MOTORS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1999 (106) E.L.T. 3] wherein it was held that Modvat credit lying to the balance of an assessee represented a vested right accrued or acquired by the assessee which cannot be taken away.

Reasoning adopted by Hon’ble High Court:- The hon’ble Madras High Court held analysed the situation be referring to clarifications issued in erstwhile indirect taxation regime. It was concluded that the credit of cesses continues to be available by the assessee till such time it is expressly stated to have been lapsed. It was held that there were many instances available to the government/CBIC when they could have stated that the credit of cesses has lapsed but that has not been done. The High Court held that the credit has been carried forward manually and reflected in the returns from time to time. Having permitted the assessee to carry forward the credit, the authorities cannot now take a stand that such credit is unavailable for use. The provisions of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (8) of section 140, and the Explanation thereunder make it more than clear that all available credit as on the date of transition would be available to an assessee for set off.

The reliance placed by the revenue authorities on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Cellular Operators Association of India Versus Union of India was also distinguished on the grounds that the said decision was pronounced in the light of pleading of the assessee to allow utilisation of cess against payment of excise duty/service tax but the High Court held that when such cross utilisation was specifically prohibited earlier, the same could not be allowed now. The said issue is different from the issue under consideration.

The High Court held that the according to section 140(1), the assessee is eligible to carry forward the balance of cesses as far as the conditions prescribed thereon are satisfied. It was also held that the amendment made so as to insert the phrase “eligible duties” after the phrase “cenvat credit” is restricted to section 140(1) and not apply to section 140(8). Explanation (1) defining 'eligible duties' that was originally made applicable only to sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 140 was extended to cover sub-section (1) as well. However, sub-section (8) of Section 140 remains untouched. Hence, assessee is eligible to carry forward balance of cesses in terms of section 140(8).

 

Comment:- The battle regarding eligibility to carry forward balance of cesses into GST regime will go a long way as the issue is pending before various High Courts but the judgment discussed above proves as a saviour to assessees who have transitioned the balance of cess to the GST regime. It is pertinent to mention here that although the Hon’ble High Court discussed the amended section 140 but the explanation no. 3 stating that “eligible duties and taxes” excludes any cess remained unnoticed in the judgment. Not only this, the clarification issued vide Circular No. 87/06/2019-GST dated 02.01.2019 clearly stating that no transition of credit of cesses, including cess which is collected as additional duty of customs under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, would be allowed in terms of Explanation 3 to section 140 was also not discussed in the judgment as the same was not placed before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. It is probable that the department will challenge this decision before the Apex Court. Nonetheless, we hope that the issue is finally resolved in favour of the assessee but in that case, another issue regarding claiming such credit by the assessees who have not claimed such credit in transitional return or who have already reversed the said credit would crop up, particularly, when there is so much hassle as regards claiming of input tax credit vis a vis reflection in GSTR-2A. It can only be said that transition of cesses into GST would be really a difficult 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.

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