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 RESTRICTION ON GENERATION OF E-WAY BILL

GST UPDATE ON RESTRICTION ON GENERATION OF E-WAY BILL

GST UPDATE ON RESTRICTION ON GENERATION OF E-WAY BILL
After the recommendations made by the government in its 31st council meeting, the requisite notifications have been issued for the purpose of implementing these proposals. One such proposal made was that taxpayers who have not filed the returns for two consecutive tax periods shall be restricted from generating e-way bills. Thus, in this regard, the government has issued notification no. 74/2018- Central tax dated 31.12.2018 inserting a new Rule 138E after rule 138D of the CGST Rules. The provision contained in Rule 138E reads as follows:- 
Restriction on furnishing of information in PART A of FORM GST EWB-01.- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 138, no person (including a consignor, consignee, transporter, an e-commerce operator or a courier agency) shall be allowed to furnish the information in PART A of FORM GST EWB-01 in respect of a registered person, whether as a supplier or a recipient, who,—
(a) being a person paying tax under section 10, has not furnished the returns for two consecutive tax periods; 
or 
(b) being a person other than a person specified in clause (a), has not furnished the returns for a consecutive period of two months
Provided that the Commissioner may, on sufficient cause being shown and for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, allow furnishing of the said information in PART A of FORM GST EWB 01, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by him:
Provided further that no order rejecting the request of such person to furnish the information in PART A of FORM GST EWB 01 under the first proviso shall be passed without affording the said person a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided also that the permission granted or rejected by the Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union territory tax shall be deemed to be granted or, as the case may be, rejected by the Commissioner. Explanation:– For the purposes of this rule, the expression ―Commissioner‖ shall mean the jurisdictional Commissioner in respect of the persons specified in clauses (a) and (b).‖.

From the above amendment it seems as if the government is determined to establish a well knitted framework to keep overall check on the assessee so as to ensure proper compliance with the GST Laws. The government is bringing such provisions which mandatorily require assessee to file returns and pay taxes else their business would be hampered. It is very well known that the provisions of e-way bill for movement of goods has been strictly adopted and it is provided that if the assessee fails to file return for two consecutive tax periods, the facility to generate e-way bill would be de-activated thereby effecting the working of the business of the assessee. This provision will be a setback for all assessees except service providers who do not generate e-way bills.

Another point that is worth observing is that the restriction to generate e-way bill will be applicable for supplier and recipient both so as to ensure that there is no loophole in the control mechanism developed by the government. Although, the liability to generate e-way bill is generally of supplier of goods but the recipient of goods is liable to generate e-way bill if the goods are purchased from un-registered supplier. However, in case where supplier and recipeint both are registered, there may be possibility that receiver can generate e-way bill. In order to prohibit recipeint to generate e-way bill in cases where the supplier defaults in furnishing return for two consecutive tax periods, it is being mentioned that e-way bill cannot be generated either in the capacity of supplier or recipeint thereby ensuring total check on the assessee.

However, the government has discriminated among the assessees as this restriction of generation of e-way bill will be attracted for composition assessees is they have not filed returns for consecutive two tax periods meaning two quarters. This is for the reason that the composition assessees are required to pay tax and file returns on quarterly basis. As against this, the normal assessees (having turnover below 1.5 Crores or above) will come within purview of this restriction if they fail to furnish returns for two consecutive months as they are required to file GSTR-3B on monthly basis. Accordingly, lenient approach has been adopted for assessees opting under composition scheme as the provisions of restriction of generation of e-way bill will attract at comparatively later point of time than normal assessees.

Lastly, the discretion given to the Commissioner to allow generation of e-way bill in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing on certain conditions is unreasonable as practically it is impossible to satisfy genuineness of case. The provision should illustrate the situations where the discretion could be exercised by the Commissioner. Moreover, the provisions as regards activation of the facility to generate e-way bills upon filing the returns for the required period is not incorporated which puts question mark on the removal of restriction after the assessee has complied with the GST law and has filed the desired returns. The government should also clearly state the period within which the assessee would be able to generate e-way bills after furnishing the required returns.

The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.

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