Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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