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 NEW ORDER OF UTILISATION OF CREDIT

GST UPDATE ON NEW ORDER OF UTILISATION OF CREDIT
Today we are sharing an update on the new order of utilization of input tax credit. A few days ago, government had inserted sections 49A and 49B in the CGST Act 2017 through CGST Amendment Act 2018 which came into effect from 01.02.2019. We had prepared an update on the same in which comparision was made between the existing and the new manner of utilization of input tax credit and it was pointed that the new mechanism is leading to payment of tax in cash under SGST inspite of credit balance available in CGST head.This update seeks to discuss the manner of utilisation of input tax credit as per Rule 88A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Before proceeding further, let us recall the provisions of newly inserted Sections 49A and 49B.
49A. UTILISATION OF INPUT TAX CREDIT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS:- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 49, the input tax credit on account of central tax, State tax or Union territory tax shall be utilised towards payment of integrated tax, central tax, State tax or Union territory tax, as the case may be, only after the input tax credit available on account of integrated tax has first been utilised fully towards such payment.
49B. ORDER OF UTILISATION OF INPUT TAX CREDIT:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter and subject to the provisions of clause (e) and clause (f) of sub-section (5) of section 49, the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, prescribe the order and manner of utilisation of the input tax credit on account of integrated tax, central tax, State tax or Union territory tax, as the case may be, towards payment of any such tax.”.
Now a new notification 16/2019-Central tax has been issued on 29th March 2019 by the government making changes in the Central Goods & Service Tax (Rules) 2017. This notification has inserted a new rule 88A dealing with the provisions of order of utilisation of credit which is in line with the newly inserted section 49A stated above. New Rule 88A is stated below as follows:-
Rule 88A. Order of utilization of input tax credit.-
Input tax credit on account of integrated tax shall first be utilised towards payment of integrated tax, and the amount remaining, if any, may be utilised towards the payment of central tax and State tax or Union territory tax, as the case may be, in any order:
Provided that the input tax credit on account of central tax, State tax or Union territory tax shall be utilised towards payment of integrated tax, central tax, State tax or Union territory tax, as the case may be,only after the input tax credit available on account of integrated tax has first been utilised fully.”.
The new Rule 88A provides that the ITC of IGST shall be utilised first towards discharging IGST liability and further gives an option to the taxpayers to offset the remaining balance of IGST ITCagainst liability of CGST/SGST/UTGST in any manner.In our point of view, as per Rule 88A credit can be utilized in the following manner:
  1. The credit balance of IGST is to be exhausted for discharging tax liability for IGST and thereafter, the remaining balance of IGST is to be used for discharging CGST or SGST or UTGST in any manner as per the choice of assessee. It is to be noted that firstly the ITC balance of IGST is required to be exhausted completely.
  2. Thereafter, the balance of CGST is to be exhausted for discharging tax liability of CGST and IGST.
  3. Lastly, the balance of SGST is to be exhausted for discharging tax liability of SGST and IGST.
 
This interpretation is explained with the help of same example as taken by us in our earlier update on utilisation of credit.
 
 
 
INPUT TAX CREDIT BALANCE     
IGST CGST SGST
5,00,000 10,00,000 10,00,000 + 1,00,000 transitional credit
 
The balance of SGST is more as transitional VAT credit was carried forward in the GST regime.
OUTPUT TAX LIABILITY
IGST CGST SGST
2,00,000 12,00,000 12,00,000
 
As per the amendment applicable w.e.f. 01.02.2019, the liability shall be discharged through credit in the following manner:-
 
PARTICULARS IGST CGST SGST
Output Tax Liability 2,00,000 12,00,000 12,00,000
Less: IGST credit utilized (2,00,000) (3,00,000) -
Less: CGST credit utilized - (9,00,000) -
Less: SGST credit utilized -
 
- (11,00,000)
Liability to be paid in cash 0 0 1,00,000
ITC Carried Forward 0 1,00,000 0
 
After the insertion of Rule 88A of the CGST Rules, 2017, the order of utilisation of credit will be as follows:
 
PARTICULARS IGST CGST SGST
Output Tax Liability 2,00,000 12,00,000 12,00,000
Less: IGST credit utilized (2,00,000) (2,00,000) (1,00,000)
Less: CGST credit utilized - (10,00,000) -
Less: SGST credit utilized -
 
- (11,00,000)
Liability to be paid in cash 0 0 0
ITC Carried Forward 0 0 0
 
If we compare the provisions, it is found that prior to introduction of Rule 88A, there was requirement to pay Rs. 1,00,000 in cash in SGST while the balance of CGST was unutilised to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, as per the new Rule 88A, the assessee has the option to set off the credit in any manner but only after utilizing the balance first towards discharging IGST liability. So in the above example there is neither any balance in the tax ledgers nor there is requirement to pay tax in cash.
Now, the question arises here is whether Rule 88Acan prescribe additional mechanism for utilisation of credit when the section 49A which overrides section 49 does not provide for? However, in GST regime, the irony is that the software of GST portal is supreme and should be compatible with the mechanism provided by the GST Act and Rules as until the software doesn’t support the new mechanism, the introduction of new sections and rules for the benefit of the taxpayers would be of no use.   
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