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 Example Of Rule 8 Of ITC Pertaining To Credit Reversal For Capital Goods

GST Update on Practical Example Of Rule 8 Of ITC Pertaining To Credit Reversal For Capital Goods

In our earlier update, we discussed the provision contained in Rule 8 with respect to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 presently in force and the complexity it will bring in compliance by the assessees. In this update, we will explain the computation to be made under Rule 8 with the help of an example. As stated in our earlier update, the calculation is to be separately made for each of the capital goods which are commonly used in business/non-business purposes or in effecting taxable and exempt supplies both.

Assuming that the GST will be implemented w.e.f. 01.06.2017, the facts of our example are as follows:-
M/s XYZ Pvt. Ltd. has purchased capital good say ‘P’ valuing Rs. 2,00,000/- on 02.07.2017 after implementation of GST wherein IGST paid was 18%. Hence, the credit of IGST taken was Rs. 36,000/-. This capital good ‘P’ will be used for effecting both taxable and exempt supplies. 

At the same time, M/XYZ Pvt. Ltd. also has another capital good say ‘Q’ purchased on 01.04.2015 for Rs. 1,00,000/- on which excise duty was paid @ 12.5% and the credit taken was Rs. 12,500/-. This capital good was exclusively used in manufacture of taxable goods and 100% credit was allowed under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but this capital good will be partly used for effecting exempted supplies under GST regime. Hence, as per Rule 8, credit based on residual life will be added in the output tax liability of M/s XYZ Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that the turnover of exempted supplies during the tax period (being July, 2017) is Rs. 75,000 and turnover of taxable supplies during the said period is Rs. 25,000. 

As stated earlier, the computation of common credit to be added in the output tax liability pertaining to exempted supplies will be computed separately for capital good ‘P’ and ‘Q’ separately. 
The computation of credit reversal in case of ‘P’ will be as follows:-
Common credit for the tax period July, 2017= 36,000/60 = Rs. 600/- per month for the useful life
Common credit pertaining to exempted supplies= 600*75000/100000
= Rs. 450/-
The amount of Rs. 450/- will be added to the output tax liability of M/s XYZ Pvt. Ltd. every month upto its useful life being 01.07.2022. 
The computation for credit reversal in case of ‘Q’ will be as follows:-
Calculation of common credit based on reduction of 5% points for every quarter or part thereof-
Total number of quarters from 01.04.2015 to 01.07.2017 = 10 Quarters
Common credit= 12500-(10*5%) = Rs. 6,250/-
Common credit during residual life remained= 6250/36 = Rs. 174/- 
Remaining residual life is number of months from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020 as the five years from 01.04.2015 comes to 30.06.2020. 
Common credit pertaining to exempted supplies= 174*75000/100000
= Rs. 130 to be added to the output tax liability upto 30.06.2020.

The above example clearly reveals the complexity of the calculation to be made with respect to every capital good. Moreover, the assessee is also required to track the remaining useful life of capital assets as the credit will be added to the output tax liability of the assessee on monthly basis which will be very difficult to implement practically. It is also worth mentioning that even bifurcation of CGST, SGST is to be made which is not taken in the present example as IGST was considered to make the example easy. Hence, the compliance under Rule 8 will be really a tough task for the assessees in the GST regime.

 

Visit us at www.capradeepjain.com and also 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