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 Restrictions on availment of ITC

GST Update on Restrictions on availment of ITC
Restrictions on availment of ITC
 
We have already informed you about the restriction of 20% on taking of credit. We are discussing in depth about this provision. Following new sub-rule (4) has been inserted in Rule 36 dealing with conditions for claiming input tax credit:
 
“(4) Input tax credit to be availed by a registered person in respect of invoices or debit notes, the details of which have not been uploaded by the suppliers under sub-section (1) of section 37, shall not exceed 20 percent of the eligible credit available in respect of invoices or debit notes the details of which have been uploaded by the suppliers under sub-section (1) of section 37.”
 
Hence the above inserted sub-rule provides that the availment of ITC with respect to the invoices or debit notes not uploaded by the supplier cannot exceed 20% of the eligible credit in respect of invoices or debit notes which have been uploaded.
 
Let us understand this with the help of an example. Suppose Mr. A registered person is a registered person in GST era.
(a) ITC reflected in GSTR 2A in October 2019 Rs. 1,00,000
(a)1 Ineligible Credit as per 2A out of (a) above Rs. 20,000
(a)2 Therefore, Eligible Credit i.e. (a)-(a)1 Rs.80,000
(b) ITC as per books of accounts Rs.1,50,000
     
  Provisional ITC (20% of the limit) that can be claimed =20%*80000= Rs.16,000
(c) Total ITC eligible for availment in 3B return =80,000+16,000
=Rs.96,000
(d) Credit to be transferred in unclaimed account in books of accounts =80%*80,000=Rs.64,000
 
ITC will be restricted for buyers if suppliers have not uploaded invoice and paid tax. Buyers will be able to claim only 20% provisional ITC. Provisional ITC will be a maximum of 20% of the ITC available as per GSTR-2A i.e. 20% of ITC for invoices that have been uploaded by suppliers.
 
The inserted rule does not elaborate the term eligible credit. However, depth analysis of the term depicts that eligible credit is the total credit reflected in the GSTR 2A for a particular period or month. However, this credit excludes ineligible credit as per Section 17(5), credit pertaining to exempt supplies, reverse charge supplies reflecting in 2A return etc.
 
However, the credit to be taken cannot be exactly 20%, it has to be based on the invoices only. You can maximize your credit by doing various permutation and combination of invoices but it will be nearest to 20%. Supposing in above example, 20% comes to 1,19,200/- then you should avail so and rest of the invoices cannot be availed.
 
Moreover, credits which cannot be availed due to 20% restriction are supposedly to be debited in unclaimed ledgers in our books of accounts rather than directly posting in Input ledgers.
The entry would be as follows-
Purchases a/c Dr……
Unclaimed Input CGST a/c Dr….
Unclaimed Input SGST a/c Dr….
          To Sundry Creditors a/c………
Or else at the end of the month, you can pass the entry and transfer from Input SGST and Input CSGT to unclaimed credit account. Now, it is not clear that 20 percent will be applicable for each account of CGST, SGST and IGST separately or overall restriction will be applicable. If overall restriction is applied then everyone will take 20 percent IGST credit which can be utilized in payment of any account.
 
Every month while reconciling GSTR 2A with the books of accounts, the excess credit remaining after availing 20% credit will be transferred to Unclaimed input ledgers.
 
There are certainly many more practical difficulties which will be faced by the assessee while complying with the inserted rule. Now continue with the same example, suppose, the next month figures are as under:-
 
(a) ITC reflected in GSTR 2A in November 2019 Rs. 2,00,000
(a)1 Ineligible Credit as per 2A out of (a) above Rs. 50,000
(a)2 Therefore, Eligible Credit i.e. (a)-(a)1 Rs.1,50,000
(b) ITC as per books of accounts Rs.2,50,000
     
 
 
The issue under consideration is basically with the calculation of eligible credit for each period and maintenance of accounts.
 
The major questions arises –
While matching GSTR 2A of the next month, some of the invoices of previous month is uploaded. invoices pertaining to Rs. 50,000 of the previous month are uploaded by the supplier. This includes some credit which has been considered in 20% limit and credit has been availed instantly in October 2019. Out of Rs. 50,000 uploaded of previous month, 30000 credit is pertaining unclaimed credit and 20,000 to claimed invoices of previous month. Now the problem comes up with the calculation of eligible ITC for the November 2019 month.
 
There are different schools of thoughts for calculating eligible credits.
(1) Technically, Eligible credit for the month of Nov 19= invoices which were unclaimed last month uploaded in GSTR2A in this month (30,000 in example)+ eligible credit reflected in 2A of Nov19
(2) However some experts are of view that the calculation should include absolute figure of Rs. 50,000 for the purpose of eligible credit. But the credit of 20,000 is already taken. However, this school says that 20,000 was never considered for 20 % limit although these are now uploaded in GSTR-2A.
 
If accumulated credit is taken for calculating eligible credits, then assessee has to devote his day and night in matching GSTR 2A of all the previous months which is a very tedious task and never ending exercise. The assesse was not able to do it on annual basis but whether they can do it on monthly basis and that too in a limited time.
 
All GSTR-1 will be uploaded on 11th, hence GSTR-2A will probably come on 15th for all assessees. Then they have to reconcile the same for all earlier months within 5 days and then file the returns.
 
In addition to this, how the assessee will do accounting entries relating to input tax credit which are ineligible due to 20% limit but eligible as per GST law that too month wise in their books of accounts. Maintenance of accounts as per this rule will be an impossible task for the accountants.
Another implication of this amendment is for small providers who file quarterly returns. Their credit will be available to purchaser on quarterly basis. But that will not be acceptable to large units. They will not trade with small assesees. Hence, they will be compelled to opt for monthly returns.
 
It does not seem to be practically possible to implement this situation. The views and suggestions from all netizens are invited on this burning issue.
 
The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.
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