Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION OF FIRM REGISTERED UNDER GST

GST UPDATE ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION OF FIRM REGISTERED UNDER GST
GST UPDATE ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION OF FIRM REGISTERED UNDER GST:-
As we all know that the introduction of provision restricting the input tax credit which is not reflected in GSTR-2A to the extent of 10% of the eligible credit available in respect of invoices uploaded by the suppliers is cumbersome and tedious for the assessees. The assessees are finding it practically impossible to keep track record of the invoices and reconciling the same with GSTR-2A and many of them are foregoing their option to avail additional 10% of the input tax credit and are simply availing the input tax credit reflected in their GSTR-2A. Apart from the tedious compliance mechanism, another practical difficulty is being faced by the assessees on account of implementation of this provision restricting the credit availment to the extent of 10%.
 
M/s ABC is a proprietorship firm registered in GST Laws and wishes to change the constitution of the firm as partnership firm namely M/s XYZ w.e.f. 01.02.2020 resulting into surrender of M/s ABC and new registration of M/s XYZ. Now, the moot question that arises here is that how will M/s ABC transfer its entire input tax credit to the newly constituted partnership firm being M/s XYZ under GST Laws? It is pertinent to mention here that as per section 18(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, 2017, when there is change in constitution of a registered person on account of sale, the registered person shall be allowed to transfer the input tax credit which remains unutilised in his electronic credit ledger to such sold business by filing FORM GST ITC-02 electronically on the common portal. However, the problem faced by the assessee is that the option to file FORM GST ITC-02 is exercisable only once whereas M/s ABC has having substantial input tax credit which is not being reflected in their GSTR-2A. To illustrate, M/s ABC is having invoices involving input tax credit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for their month of January, 2020 out of which invoices to the extent of Rs 5,00,000/- are being reflected in their GSTR-2A. Consequently, M/s ABC can avail input tax credit in their GSTR-3B for the month of January, 2020 upto maximum amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (5,00,000+10% of Rs. 5,00,000) and so the input tax credit available in electronic credit ledger of M/s ABC would be Rs. 5,50,000/- inspite of the fact that the amount of input tax credit as per invoices is Rs. 10,00,000/- which should have been credited in their electronic credit ledger to be ultimately transferred to M/s XYZ. However, on account of restriction imposed vide Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, M/s ABC is able to claim input tax credit of Rs. 5,50,000/- in GSTR-3B filed for the month of January, 2020. Moreover, it is very uncertain when will all the input tax credit be reflected in GSTR-2A of M/s ABC. Furthermore, M/s ABC cannot wait for long time for filing ITC-02 as it is to be filed once. There is no provision prescribed in GST Law for dealing with this situation and the only option left with M/s ABC is to avail the entire input tax credit available, i.e., Rs. 10,00,000/- in the GSTR-3B filed for the month of January, 2020 and transfer the same to newly constituted firm M/s XYZ effective from 01.02.2020. Also, M/s ABC will continue its old registration under GST until the entire input tax credit is reflected in its GSTR-2A. This will in turn increase the compliance cost for M/s ABC of filing GST returns till the registration is finally surrendered.
 
It is submitted that even after the above course of action is adopted by M/s ABC, the department can raise objection that the input tax credit which is reflected in GSTR-2A of M/s ABC later on cannot be availed and utilised by M/s XYZ in advance. The department may also insist on payment of interest for availment and utilisation of credit beforehand. Well, a suitable clarification from the government is the need of hour so that unwarranted litigation may be avoided. 
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