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 recommendations of gst council on refund procedure part-13

GST Update on recommendations of gst council on refund procedure part-13
This update seeks to discuss the recommendations made by GST council in its 31st meeting held on 22nd December, 2018 with respect to refund procedure prevalent as on date. One of the major decision taken with respect to refund is the introduction of scheme of single authority for disbursement of the refund amount sanctioned by either the Centre or the State tax authorities that is proposed to be implemented on pilot basis. It is pertinent to mention that the delay and problem faced by the assessees due to separate procedure for disbursement of refund by Central and State authorities was represented by us and has been partially considered by the GST Council. In order to explain the proposed scheme for disbursement of refund, it is better to have a look at the present procedure of disbursement of refund by the revenue authorities. 
To begin with, at present, the actual disbursement of refund takes a very long time, leading to blocking of working capital of the assesses which acts as a big hindrance in their smooth functioning. It is submitted that apart from refund sanctioning officers, the Payment Officers are appointed for multiple Commissionerates. The amount of refund to be sanctioned to the assessee is sent via draft to the Payment Officer who then approves the refund amount and thereafter refund is disbursed to the assessee via RTGS. Similarly, in cases of refund of SGST, the refund draft is sent to the treasury and after approval, the refund is sanctioned to the assessee via RTGS. In nutshell, the refund sanctioning authority is different from refund disbursement authority, that too, separate for the Centre and State. However, the representation was made to the council to appoint a single authority for disbursement of refund (for Centre and State both) which will lead to speedy disbursal of refund claims filed by assessee. It was accepted by the GST council. However, it was also represented that the refund sanctioning authority and disbursement authority should also be merged. But this matter has not been accepted by the GST council. Now long duration taken in sanction of refund will be lowered but still the sanctioning authority cannot disburse the refund, hence time will still be taken in getting money by exporter.
Furthermore, as GST seeks to function online with less paperwork, it is also proposed that all the supporting documents/invoices in relation to a claim for refund in FORM GST RFD-01A will be uploaded electronically on the common portal at the time of filing of the refund application itself. Hence, there will be no requirement for the taxpayer to visit a tax office for submission of a refund application. This feature will shortly be enabled on the common portal and is appreciated by the assessees. However, uploading of invoices which are not appearing in GSTR-2A will be difficult task. 
In continuation to the above, the following types of refunds shall also be made available through FORM GST RFD-01A:
• Refund on account of assessment/Provisional Assessment/Appeal/Any other order;
• Tax paid on an intra-State supply which is subsequently held to be inter-State supply and vice-versa;
• Excess payment of Tax; and
• Any other refund.
It is also clarified that in case of applications for refund in FORM GST RFD-01A (except those relating to refund of excess balance in the cash ledger)which are generated on the common portal before the roll out of the functionality described above, and which have not been submitted in the jurisdictional tax office within 60 days of the generation of ARN, the claimants shall be sent communications on their registered email ids containing information on where to submit the said refund applications. If the applications are not submitted within 15 days of the date of the email, the said refund applications shall be summarily rejected, and the debited amount, if any, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger of the claimant. 
It appears that the government seeks to streamline the procedure of sanction of refund so that there is speedy disbursement of refund to the assessees which is highly appreciated by assessees.
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