Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF CREDIT REVERSAL ON SALE OF BUSINESS AS GOING CONCERN 98/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF CREDIT REVERSAL ON SALE OF BUSINESS AS GOING CONCERN 98/2020-21
In our earlier update no. 97/2020-21, we had discussed that sale of business as a ‘going concern’ is an exempt service in terms of serial no. 2 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated  28.06.2017 and  consequently, the provisions contained in Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 would apply. We have received lot of messages regarding the issue raised by us and so we attempt to discuss this point in the present update.
 
If the definition of ‘exempt supply’ as given in section 2(47) of the CGST Act, 2017 is referred, it is found that it includes services which attracts nil rate of tax or which is wholly exempt from tax under section 11. Consequently, there is no doubt as regards the fact that the transfer of business by way of going concern is an exempted service. Furthermore, as per the amended CGST Act, 2017, Explanation to section 17(3), value of exempt supply shall not include the value of activities or transactions specified in Schedule III, except those specified in paragraph 5 of the said Schedule. Consequently, the only exception where provisions of credit reversal would not apply is transactions specified in Schedule III subject to paragraph 5. Hence, as per legal provisions in force, provisions of credit reversal as contained in Rule 42 would apply even in cases of transfer of business by way of going concern. It is understandable that this provision is very harsh and illogical but still the assessees need to abide by the same. Now, the next question arises is what will be the mechanism for computation of the credit reversal in such cases? Well, there is no express provision in this regard but we can infer that one may at the most require to reverse common credit availed in the tax period in which such transfer is taking place. However, this will lead to credit reversal at extremely higher side as the exempted value would be the transfer value whereas the denominator would be total turnover for the said tax period which is not at all justifiable. Hence, it is practically impossible to comply with the requirement of credit reversal in cases where business is transferred as going concern and so the government should either carve out exception in the explanation to section 17(3) of CGST Act, 2017 by including it in Schedule III to CGST Act, 2017 or provide mechanism for credit reversal, though it appears to be logically incorrect.  
 
In our opinion, there should not be requirement of complying with the credit reversal provisions in case of transfer of business as going concern but the interpretation of law indicates so. However, in this context, we wish to point out that there is no logic for requiring the transferor to reverse input tax credit as the transferee would be paying GST on the stock transferred or will use the machinery for supplying goods liable for GST. This situation can be very well co-related with the issue of credit reversal by job-worker in the erstwhile regime which was finally settled in favour of the assessee. In the erstwhile era, one of the common issue raised was requirement to reverse credit by the job-worker on clearance of job-worked goods as the said goods were not liable to central excise duty in terms of notification no. 214/86-CE. However, the matter reached upto High Court and was settled in the case of COMMISSIONER VERSUS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. [2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (BOM)] wherein it was ruled that as far as central excise duty is being paid by the principal manufacturer and ultimately tax is being received by the government, there is no requirement for reversing credit by the job worker. We can contend that similar analogy applies in the present situation also because as far as the transferee is paying GST, the transferor should not be required to reverse credit, merely because the said transaction is exempted from levy of GST by way of exemption notification. We hope that the anomaly as pointed is considered by the government soon so that unwarranted litigation is not instigated by the department.

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 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16 
 
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