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 problems being faced by Risky Exporters 86/2020-21

GST Update on problems being faced by Risky Exporters 86/2020-21
 A few days ago some newspapers carried a report which read as “Resolve risky exporters' issue immediately, release refunds: FIEO”. This heading of the newspaper states that Federation of Indian Export Organisations has directed fast resolution of issues related to 'risky exporters' and immediate release of their refunds to help them tide over the problems arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. In this update we intend to share problems being faced by Risky Exporters.
Before we move forward let us have a quick look at which exporters are Risky Exporters. An exporter is tagged as risky if the customs department suspects that duty drawback claims and IGST refunds or claims excessive Input tax credit on the basis of bogus invoices. The consignments of risky exporters undergo manual checking before their claims are refunded.
Here is a list of problems being faced by Risky Exporters.
  1. The parameters on which they are flagged as risky is not known.
  2. Refund is being withheld leading to working capital issues.
  3. If all the required formalities are being completed and the department is satisfied as to remove the flag and in fact removes at one port but sometimes do forget to remove at another port resulting in blocking of refund to the exporter and again resulting in the exporter to find out why the refund has been blocked.
  4. Submission of documents demanded by authorities is not easy in the crisis times.  
  5. In case the risky exporter is registered in multi locations that is different units and if registered person of one state is declared as Risky then refund relating to all the units is blocked and the seal of containers even belonging to other units are also cut open. It is being told by Customs department that the audit is being done on IEC basis instead of on Registration basis.
  6. In the above case, the cost to the exporter increases as once the seal is being cut the container is to be fumigated.
  7. Lack of communication from the department to the exporter that he has been flagged as ‘Risky’. He comes to know only when the refund is withheld or the ITC is blocked.
  8. Lack of communication between GST and Customs Department even in the latest era of telecommunication, resulting in the exporter becoming a carrier of information from here to there and vice-a-versa.
  9. Even the supplier of exporter (normally termed as L1 by department) is also being checked if it is pointed out by Delhi office. We have seen that even supplier (L2) of the supplier(L1) of risky exporter is also being physically verified and being checked by CGST department. If this L2 supplier is known as fake invoice credit taking unit then the person who has supplied the fake invoices is also being watched. In some cases, these L2 suppliers are asked to reverse the credit. If he does not do so then the flag of risky exporter is not being removed. But the poor risky exporter do not have dealing with L2 supplier, hence he cannot ask him to reverse the credit. In such circumstances, the flag of risky exporter is not being removed even after 6 months. The poor exporter has to face problems even though there is no fault at his end.
  10. Even the author of this write up has come across situation where the some suppliers of risky exporter have surrendered their registration or their registration is being cancelled. Now the department asks this poor exporter to reverse the credit taken on invoices by such supplier. However, all the invoices of these suppliers are appearing in GSTR-2A. if the amount is huge then the matter is not sorted out and poor exporter is deprived of this genuine refund. Even the interest is not being paid by the department to such exporters. The poor exporter faces the music due to fault of supplier or even supplier of suppliers.
  11. The impression in trade and industry and particularly in exporters is that the Government does not intend to give refunds, hence the concept of “risky exporter” is being introduced.
  12. There is legal backing of this concept of “risky exporter”. If it is challenged in High Court then it will be very difficult to defend in Court of law. There is no provision in law to declare an exporter as “risky exporter”. Even the criteria of its selection is not known to anybody. We were discussing this concept with a senior advocate then a new problem crop up is to challenge it in the state where the IEC registration is taken or in a state where factory is located or in a state in whose area the port is located where action is initiated by putting flag on his IEC. Even it is very cumbersome problem when the export has taken place from different ports falling in different states. The exporter has to find the solutions of all these problems but it is clear that this concept of “risky exporter” will not be legally sustainable. 
The exporters marked as ‘risky’ have their IGST/ITC refunds blocked as well as their duty drawback amount is blocked until they are declared non-risky, such exporters are accountable to complete cargo check at ports and airports which are creating even more hassles for businesses as the customs department does not have enough resources to carry forward such checks. The standard operating procedure which a risky exporter has to be follow is very complex and there is a need to simplify this procedure.
 
This is solely for educational purpose.
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