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 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