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 Non Transmission of Data from ICEGATE to GST Portal cannot be ground for denying refund

GST Update on Non Transmission of Data from ICEGATE to GST Portal cannot be ground for denying refund
During the initial stages of the implementation of GST Law, exporters faced lot of difficulties in claiming refund of IGST paid on exports as the refund mechanism was totally digitized and there were lot of technical glitches on the GST portal. However, the refund claims were being denied for minor procedural lapses which had led to inconvenience to the assessees. Recently, the issue regarding denial of refund of IGST paid on exports for nontransmission of data from ICEGATE to GST portal was placed before the hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of SRC Chemicals Private Limited & Anr. Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The outcome of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner has exported certain goods from Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Nhava Sheva nearly the end of June 2017. Since the indirect tax regime was set to undergo a complete change and since the said port was also in the process of adopting new system for transition to GST regime, the shipping bill which should have got printed on 28/6/2017 got printed on 1/7/2017 i.e. after implementation of GST Act. Since GST was applicable with effect from 1/7/2017 and leviable on the export of goods, the shipping bill got printed on 1/7/2017 with petitioner’s GST Number and levy of IGST with the date of 29/6/2017. The petitioner has submitted all the documents to the port but the process of printing the shipping bill in port was beyond their control. The petitioner contended that since the supplies of goods for export were reflected as with payment of integrated tax at the time of export, they paid the applicable IGST and opted for claiming refund of the same. Reliance was placed on the circular no. 26/2017-Customs dated 01-07-2017, wherein it was clarified that the assesses are not required to file any separate application for refund of IGST paid on supply of goods for exports. The petitioner had approached the customs office to check the status of its refund but they were informed that unless export data was transmitted from GSTN to ICEGATE, the Customs office would not be in position to process the refund claim. Petitioner had no control or role to play in the transmission of data from GSTN to ICEGATE. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application for refund in Form GST RFD01A and thereafter received show cause notice from department proposing to reject petitioner’s application for refund. The petitioner has filed reply but their refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) but their appeal was rejected on the ground that the jurisdiction for deciding the issue of refund of the IGST paid on exported goods was with the Customs. Hence, the petitioner filed petition before the High Court. The hon’ble High Court held that unfortunately, it is more than 4½ years since the amount has not been refunded and it was the responsibility of the department to ensure that petitioner was sanctioned refund. Hence, the Bombay High Court directed the GST Authority to issue refund along with the interest @9% from the date of filing petition along with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The above decision is a landmark decision for the cases wherein the refund claim of IGST paid on export of goods was stuck on account of technical lapses such as non-transmission of data from ICEGATE to GST portal. The departmental authorities should take endeavour to resolve the difficulty in grant of refund rather than rejecting the claims without any justifiable reasons. It is hoped that this decision will serve as a strong binding precedent for claiming refunds withheld for technical lapses in the GST portal.
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