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 REPORTING OF CREDIT NOTES AND AMENDMENTS IN GSTR-9

GST UPDATE ON REPORTING OF CREDIT NOTES AND AMENDMENTS IN GSTR-9
In the earlier update we have discussed the issues regarding the bifurcation of the credit availed in the GSTR 3B in the categories inputs, input services and capital goods. This update intends to highlight issues related to credit notes and reporting of amendments in GSTR-9.
4I in GSTR 9 contains details of credit notes issued in respect of outward supplies in 4B to 4E of GSTR 9 which is briefly described as follows-
4B- Supplies made to unregistered persons(B2B)
4C- Zero rated Supply(Export) on payment of tax(except supplies to SEZs)
4D- Supply to SEZs on payment of tax
4E- Deemed Exports
Reporting under credit notes issued for outward supplies made (4I) consists of only those which are reported in Table 9B of the GSTR 1 for the financial year 2017-18. Any reporting made subsequently in 2018-19 even in respect of period July- March 2018 are not to be considered here for reporting in table 4I.
Any amendments made in the debit and credit notes itself in the same financial year will be shown under the table 4K/4L- Supplies/ Tax declared through Amendments. However, it must be noted that only net effects of the amendments needs to be captured i.e. the incremental or differential value. If the entire revised value of invoice is disclosed in the amendment table, it will result in duplication of data thereby leading to incorrect results.
Another important point to be noted is that there is separate Part V for reporting transactions of financial year 2017-18 which are declared in returns filed for the period from April, 2018 to September, 2018. Table 10 and Table 11 of GSTR 9, reflects the supplies/tax declared or reduced through amendments. The point for consideration is that whether omission of transaction is to be treated as amendment or not? Say for example, if a sales invoice pertaining to the month of February, 2018 was omitted to be reported in GSTR-1 for February, 2018 and was later reported in the return filed for the month of May, 2018. In such case, the supplies, even if declared first time are to be reported in table 10 of GSTR-9. Although, the serial no. 10 of GSTR-9 mentions supplies declared through amendments but since there is no other specific serial no. wherein such supplies can be reported, the omissions are also to be reported in serial no. 10 of GSTR-9 itself.

The reporting of credit notes and their amendments is illustrated with the help of an example. Supplies were made to registered person amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 in the month of July, 2017. A credit note was issued against this invoice amounting Rs. 20,000 and was reported in August, 2017. However, the correct value of credit note was reflected in GSTR-1 of March, 2018 with Rs. 30000.
Now, the credit note worth Rs. 20,000 is to be shown in the table 4I under GSTR 9. The differential amount i.e.(30000-20000)= 10000 is to be shown under table 4L in GSTR 9.
In the same example, if the correct value of credit note was reflected in GSTR-1 of April, 2018, then in such case, since the revision was carried in the period April, 2018 to September, 2018, the same would be reported in Table 11 of annual return.
One more issue that is haunting the minds of the assessees is reporting of credit notes issued against nil rated, exempted and Non GST supplies. These credit notes are to be duly reported under table 5H table in annual return. However, GSTR 1 does not give facility to report such type of transactions in online as well as offline mode as such credit notes do not impact GST liability. These credit notes are in the nature of financial credit notes and are not reported in GSTR-1. Therefore, clarification should be issued as regards reporting such credit notes in the table 5H of return.

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