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 RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 50

GST UPDATE ON RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 50
The budget 2022 has made considerable changes in the CGST Act, 2017 and has tried to remove anomalies prevalent in the various sections of the CGST Act, 2017. The matching concept could not be operationalised since the inception of GST and it was perceived as far possibility to develop sufficient infrastructure for the same. Consequently, the provisions related to matching concept being section 42, 43 and 43A of the CGST Act, 2017 have been deleted. Similarly, section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been amended retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to rectify the drafting error in the said section. The analysis of the retrospective amendment made in section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The provision of section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 prevalent as of now, reads as follows:- (3) A taxable person who makes an undue or excess claim of input tax credit under sub-section (10) of section 42 or undue or excess reduction in output tax liability under sub-section (10) of section 43, shall pay interest on such undue or excess claim or on such undue or excess reduction, as the case may be, at such rate not exceeding twenty-four per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council. Moreover, the notification no. 13/2017-Central Tax dated 28.06.2017, prescribing interest rate has reference of section 50(1) specifying interest rate as 18% and states interest rate of 24% for section 50(3). Now, the question arises is the applicable interest rate for wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit for reason other than matching concept which is not made operational till date. There is no specific provision in section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 covering situations wherein the interest is leviable for wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit for various other reasons such as ineligible credit under section 17(5) availed by the assessee or inadvertently credit taken twice by the assessee. In such cases, there was confusion as regards the applicability of interest rate as 18% or 24% or 0% as there is no specific provision for the same. It is worth mentioning that this lacunae in the provision of section 50 was pointed by us in our earlier GST update titled- MADARS HC DECISION ON LEVY OF INTEREST ON WRONG AVAILMENT OF ITC. It is submitted that the hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S F1 AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. [W.P. NO. 6631 OF 2021] had concluded that since the provisions of section 42 were not invoked in the case of petitioner, they were not required to pay interest rate of 24% but were required to pay interest of 18% for the wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit. While analysing the reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble High Court, we had pointed that as per the provisions contained in section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, section 50(3) only covers the situation of wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit under section 42/43 of CGST Act. Consequently, once it is held that provisions of section 42/43 are not applicable, interest should not be leviable for wrongful availment and utilisation of credit. It appears that the government has realised the drafting lacunae and has resorted to rectification of the said provision. The retrospective amendment as proposed in the Finance Bill, 2022 reads as follows:- “(3) Where the input tax credit has been wrongly availed and utilised, the registered person shall pay interest on such input tax credit wrongly availed and utilised, at such rate not exceeding twenty-four per cent. as may be notified by the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, and the interest shall be calculated, in such manner as may be prescribed.” It is worth noting that simultaneously retrospective amendment has been made in the notification no. 13/2017-Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 prescribing 18% for section 50(3). On harmonious construction of the above amendments, after enactment of the Finance Act, 2022, the wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit will be liable to interest at the rate of 18%. It is submitted that the above amendment on the one hand confirms the levy of interest on wrongful availment and utilisation of credit by removing the drafting error in section 50 while on the other hand provides benefit to the assessee that interest is not payable on mere wrongful availment of input tax credit. The issue regarding levy of interest on mere wrongful availment of interest is decided in favour of the assessees. Reference may be made to the decision given by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of M/S COMMERCIAL STEEL ENGINEERING VS STATE OF BIHAR [W.P. NO. 2125 OF 2019] wherein it was concluded that interest is to be charged only if the wrongful availment of input tax credit has resulted in short payment of tax by the assessee. Therefore, the amendment seeks to reduce the possibility of litigation as regards interest liability on wrong availment and utilisation of input tax credit in future
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