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 TREATING GSTR-3B AS RETURN UNDER GST LAW:-

GST UPDATE ON RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TREATING GSTR-3B AS RETURN UNDER GST LAW:-
The government issued Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax dated 09.10.2019 wherein Rule 61(5) has been amended so as to deem GSTR-3B as return with effect from 01.07.2017. The content of the Rule 61(5) is produced for the sake of convenient reference as follows:-
OLD RULE:-
[(5) Where the time limit for furnishing of details in FORM GSTR-1 under section 37 and in FORM GSTR-2 under section 38 has been extended and the circumstances so warrant, the Commissioner may, by notification, [specify the manner and conditions subject to which the]82 return shall be furnished in FORM GSTR-3B electronically through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.  
NEW RULE:-
“(5) Where the time limit for furnishing of details in FORM GSTR-1 under section 37 or in FORM GSTR-2 under section 38 has been extended, the return specified in sub-section (1) of section 39 shall, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Commissioner may, by notification, specify, be furnished in FORM GSTR-3B electronically through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner:
Provided that where a return in FORM GSTR-3B is required to be furnished by a person referred to in sub-rule (1) then such person shall not be required to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3.”;
The above amendment clarifies that the GSTR-3B is to be considered as return equivalent to GSTR-3 because if person is required to furnish GSTR-3B, the person is not required to furnish GSTR-3. This amendment seeks to nullify the recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AAP AND CO. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 481 (GUJ.)] wherein it was held that the last date of availing input tax credit is the last date of furnishing annual return as GSTR-3B is not a substitute of monthly return GSTR-3 having statutory backing of section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
It is to be noted that GSTR-3B was introduced as a temporary measure because the GSTN was not ready for the proposed mechanism of GSTR-1, 2 and 3 as prescribed by the CGST Act, 2017. However, with time, filing of GSTR-3B has been extended and the return in FORM GSTR-3 is not yet operational. Now, the question arises is whether the government can retrospectively amend the Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 so as to treat GSTR-3B as a return in lieu of GSTR-3?
 
The answer to the above question lies in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS BASANT AGROTECH (INDIA) LTD. [2014 (302) E.L.T. 3. (S.C.)]. It was held in this decision that legislature can make law retrospectively or prospectively, subject to justifiability and acceptability within constitutional parameters and subordinate legislation can be given retrospective effect if the power in this behalf is contained in principal Act. As we all know that the Rules are subordinate and the Act is principal and so in order to consider GSTR-3B as a return in lieu of GSTR-3, it is essential that the government has powers to retrospectively amend such rule.
 
In this context, the provisions of section 164(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 are worth noting which read as follows:-
 
SECTION 164- POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE RULES
 
(3) The power to make rules conferred by this section shall include the power to give retrospective effect to the rules or any of them from a date not earlier than the date on which the provisions of this Act come into force.
 
It is to be noted that since the government has been empowered to make retrospective amendment in Rules, the above amendment made to treat GSTR-3B as a return in lieu of GSTR-3 with retrospective effect is legally proper. However, it is pertinent to mention that the government had promised while implementing GST regime that the new regime would be assessee friendly and the practise of retrospective amendments will not be resorted to by the government. It appears that the promise made by the government has been forgotten and the effect of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision given in the case of AAP AND CO. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 481 (GUJ.)] has been nullified.
When the controversy in case of Vadofone arose then the Government has promised that no retrospective amendment will br brought in the law to nullify the Court verdict. But again this has been done. Earlier the retrospective amendments were always proposed in Finance Bills and these were done by parliament only. But now this power has been extended to bureaucratic set up. Now the retrospective amendment will come too frequently as we all know bureaucracy does not agree normally with Apex Court decisions also. The message is clear “Do not litigate with the department.”   
 
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