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 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR EXPORTERS SUPPLYING GOODS ON PAYMENT OF IGST

GST UPDATE ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR EXPORTERS SUPPLYING GOODS ON PAYMENT OF IGST

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR EXPORTERS SUPPLYING GOODS ON PAYMENT OF IGST-
According to the provisions of section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, an exporter is eligible to claim refund under either of the following options:
(a) He may supply goods or services under bond without payment of IGST and claim refund of unutilized input tax credit as per section 54 of CGST Act;
(b) He may supply goods or services, on payment of IGST and claim refund of IGST paid on goods and services exported in accordance with provisions of section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides for provision relating to refund of integrated tax paid on goods exported out of India wherein it has been stated that filing of valid return in GSTR-3 or GSTR-3B will be deemed as application of refund. Moreover, section 54(7) prescribes the time limit for issue of order as sixty days from the date of receipt of application of refund which is complete in all respects. It is also worth mentioning that in case of any claim for refund on account of zero rated supplies, section 54(6) provides benefit of provisional refund of 90% of the total amount of refund claimed excluding the amount of input tax credit provisionally accepted. The benefit sought to be given to the exporters by way of provisional refund of 90% of the total refund is with the condition that the amount of provisional input tax credit shall be excluded from the total claim. This in turn seeks to nullify the purpose of the benefit intended to be given to the exporters because the refund claim is required to be sanctioned within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt and the provisional input tax credit takes a period of one month to be able to be considered as final input tax credit. It is submitted that although there is no restriction as regards utilisation of provisional input tax credit, the refund claim filed by the exporters by utilising provisional input tax credit will be withheld until the said input tax credit is finally accepted.

The government has relaxed the provisions regarding filing of GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 for July, 2017 and August, 2017. The assessee is required to file GSTR-1 for July, 2017 from 1st to 5th September and GSTR-2 for the month of July, 2017 from 6th to 10th September. Hence, the mechanism of provisional input tax credit for the month of July, 2017 will commence in the month of September, 2017. The details of inputs procured from various suppliers by the exporters will be auto-populated in GSTR-2 by 10th September, 2017 and the GSTR-3 for July, 2017 will be filed upto 15th September, 2017. Now, it is not clear that whether the provisionally admissible input tax credit for the month of July, 2017 will be finalised by 15th September or by 30th September, being the last date for filing GSTR-3 for the month of August, 2017. In any case, even if it is assumed that the input tax credit for the month of July, 2017 is finalised by 30th September, 2017, the claim of refund of exporters supplying goods or services on payment of IGST will be delayed. 
Since the closing balance of credit from Excise, VAT and Service Tax returns will be available in the Electronic Cash Ledger only after filing TRAN-1, the export of goods and services on payment of IGST will be made only by utilising the provisional credit admissible to them. It is pertinent to mention that the filing of GSTR-3 or GSTR-3B will be deemed as an application for claiming refund of IGST paid on exports. It is also worth noting that although GSTR-3B has been mentioned as one of the ways of claiming refund of IGST paid on exports but the format does not contain any details pertaining to shipping bill number through which refund could be granted. Hence, it appears that the refund of IGST paid on exports will be admissible only after filing GSTR-3 because the provisional credit used by the exporters will not be refunded on provisional basis. The GSTR-3 for the month of July, 2017 will be filed on 15th September, 2017 which will adversely affect the working capital requirements of the exporters. 
It is also submitted that even for the month of September, 2017, although, the exporter will utilise the provisional credit for payment of IGST and it will be deemed that the refund application of IGST paid on exports has been filed on 20th October, 2017 but inspite of this, the provisional refund to the extent of 90% will be admissible only after 20th November, 2017 when the provisional input tax credit will be finally accepted. This will have the effect that the refund application will be filed on 20.10.2017 whereas the provisional refund of 90% will be granted after 20.11.2017 while the order for refund is to be passed upto 19.12.2017. Say for example, if the opening balance of input tax credit in September, 2017 was Rs. 1,00,000/- while the provisional input tax credit received during the month of September, 2017 was Rs. 5,00,000/- and the IGST paid on exports by utilising input tax credit was Rs. 3,00,000/-, then the exporter will get provisional refund of Rs. 90,000/- (being 90% of Rs. 1,00,000) as the input tax credit of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be finally accepted by 20.11.2017. In our opinion, the ultimate purpose of the benefit will be defeated if the provisional refund is granted excluding the amount of provisional input tax credit.

 

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at our facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/

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