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 RELAXATION WITH RESPECT TO RULE 36(4) OF CGST RULES, 2017 - 004/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON RELAXATION WITH RESPECT TO RULE 36(4) OF CGST RULES, 2017 - 004/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON RELAXATION WITH RESPECT TO RULE 36(4) OF CGST RULES, 2017
The introduction of the provision restricting the input tax credit availment vis a vis invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A to the extent of 10% of the invoices reflected in GSTR-2A under Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was resisted by the trade and industry as it substantially had an adverse on the working capital requirements of the business. The taxpayers were forced to discharge their GST liability in cash inspite of possession of valid invoices for the sole reason that the suppliers failed to comply with the filing of GSTR-1 within stipulated time. As we all know that the entire world is witnessing the rigours of pandemic COVID-19, it was represented by the trade and industry that the provision restricting input tax credit under Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should be suspended for the time being. We appreciate that the government has considered the demands of trade and industry and has amended the applicability of provision contained in Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The present update seeks to discuss the amendment made and the implications thereon.
Notification No. 30/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020 inserts the following proviso to Rule 36(4):-
“Provided that the said condition shall apply cumulativelyfor the period February, March, April, May, June, July and August, 2020 and the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the tax period September, 2020 shall be furnished with the cumulative adjustment of input tax credit for the said months in accordance with the condition above.”
According to the above proviso, the provision restricting the input tax credit to the extent of 10% of the input tax credit reflected in the GSTR-2A (if certain invoices are not reflected in GSTR-2A) will be applicable cumulatively for the period February, 2020 to August, 2020 and the taxpayer is required to give cumulative adjustment of the input tax credit in the GSTR-3B filed for the month of September, 2020. In simple words, the requirement of restricting credit to the extent of 10% as contained in Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 that was earlier done on monthly basis has been deferred so as to provide relief to the taxpayers in difficult times.
Now, the following issues come in the minds of taxpayers:-
  1. Whether taxpayer can avail 100% input tax credit for the months of February, 2020 to August, 2020 even if invoices pertaining to the input tax credit is not being reflected in their GSTR-2A for the respective months? Answer is YES. The taxpayer can avail entire input tax credit on goods or services received during the said period on the strength of invoices irrespective of the fact that the said invoices are reflected in the GSTR-2A of the respective months. However, the taxpayer is to cumulatively apply the restriction for the entire period in the GSTR-3B for the month of September, 2020. This is explained with the help of following example:-
MONTH ITC as per invoices received ITC reflected in GSTR-2A for the respective month Details of ITC for previous period reflected subsequently in GSTR-2A ITC taken in GSTR-3B for the respective month ITC that should have been availed as per 10% restriction
JUNE 10,00,000 8,00,000 - 10,00,000 8,80,000
JULY 12,00,000 9,00,000 1,00,000 12,00,000 9,90,000
AUG 12,50,000 12,00,000 3,00,000 12,50,000 12,50,000
 
After implementation of the amended provision, the taxpayer is required to make cumulative adjustment of the invoices for the period February, 2020 to August, 2020 that have not been reflected in GSTR-2A till 11th October, 2020. In the present case, the total input tax credit of the previous period which is not reflected in GSTR-2A is Rs. 1,00,000/- of July month, 2020. It is assumed that the input tax credit of Rs. 50,000/- not reflected in GSTR-2A pertaining to August, 2020 was reflected in subsequent month. Consequently, the taxpayer is required to reverse Rs. 1,00,000/- in the GSTR-3B filed for the month of September, 2020.
 
  1. Whether relaxation is to be applied for the month of September, 2020? Answer is NO. The taxpayer is required to apply the restriction of 10% with respect to invoices not reflected pertaining to input tax credit availed in the month of September, 2020. The relaxation is applicable only for input tax credit pertaining to the month of August, 2020.
  2. For computing the cumulative effect for the purpose of 10% restriction for the period from February, 2020 to August, 2020, taxpayer should download GSTR-2A of which date?
There is nothing clarified in the circular no. 136/06/2020-GST dated 03.04.2020 as regards the date on which GSTR-2A is to be taken for cumulative adjustment of input tax credit. However, reference to clarification issued vide Circular No. 123/42/2019-GST dated 11.11.2019, can be made wherein it was stated that the taxpayer is required to use GSTR-2A as available on the due date of filing of FORM GSTR-1 under section 37(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, we can infer that since cumulative adjustment is to be made in the GSTR-3B for the month of September, 2020, the taxpayer should take GSTR-2A as on the due date of filing GSTR-1 for the month of September, 2020 being 11th October, 2020.  However, it is expected that express clarification should be given by the government at the earliest possible.
 
Before parting, we submit that the above amendment is highly appreciated as it will provide much needed relief to the trade and industry to face the unforeseen pandemic situation. 
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