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 Reversal of ITC in case of supplier not filed GSTR-3B and Reversal of ITC Merely by Adopting Uniform or Ad-hoc Percentage is unsustainable 145/2020-21

GST Update on Reversal of ITC in case of supplier not filed GSTR-3B and Reversal of ITC Merely by Adopting Uniform or Ad-hoc Percentage is unsustainable 145/2020-21
GST Update on Reversal of ITC in case of supplier not filed GSTR-3B and Reversal of ITC Merely by Adopting Uniform or Ad-hoc Percentage is unsustainable
 
This update is being prepared in an interesting decision by Madras High court in a sales tax matter in case of Sri Ranganathar Valves Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner. The impugned decision has dealt two issues of reversal of credit on wastages as well as reversal of ITC on non payment by supplier of goods. High Court held that input tax credit cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that supplier has not paid tax to Government. Court has also set aside the demand confirmed by Assistant commissioner for reversal of ITC on normal loss issued to him. The Court has remanded the matter to adjudication officer to decide the matter afresh on the basis of decisions quoted in the judgement.

In this case, the petitioner contended that Input Tax Credit cannot be disallowed on the ground that the seller has not paid tax to the Government. The petitioner submitted that he is able to prove that the seller has collected tax and issued invoices to him.

The second point with regard to reversal of input tax credit claim on wastage under Section 19(9) of the State Act. There were two type of losses namely invisible loss and visible loss, the petitioner adopted a policy of normal loss upto 1% percentage and abnormal loss of  5%  respectively.

Generally invisible loss is called as “normal Loss” and visible loss is called as “abnormal loss” and Input Tax credit is allowed for normal losses and it is to be reversed only in case of abnormal loss. The petitioner adopted the adhoc formula of 5% of raw material as normal loss and 1% for abnormal Loss. Here, Assistant Commissioner issued a SCN for reopening of cases and requires the assessee to reverse Input Tax Credit on the basis of 4% of raw material for visible (normal) Losses and 5% of raw material for invisible (abnormal) Losses.

After hearing the both the parties, the High Court observed that, in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), presently Thiruverkadu, Assessment Circle, Kolathur, Chennai Vs. Infiniti Wholesale Ltd., reported in [2017] 99 VST 341 (Mad), wherein it has held that Input Tax Credit cannot be disallowed on the ground that the seller has not paid tax to the Government, when the purchaser is able to prove that the seller has collected tax and issued invoices to the purchaser. As such, restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit on this ground, cannot be sustained and requires re-consideration.

Further, with regard to the second issue where High Court set sides the SCN for reopening of cases and consequential order passed reversing the input tax credit to the extent of either four per cent or five per cent or on ad hoc percentage. The Honorable High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to issue appropriate show cause notices to the petitioners clearly setting out under what circumstances they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to refund sanctioned and after inviting objections proceed in accordance with law.

This is landmark decision as there is dispute on both issues in GST also. Section 16(2) requires that payment of GST should be made by supplier only then the credit is allowed to recipient. Hence, there is specific provision in this regard in GST. Whether the decision cited supra will be applicable in GST also? Moreover, the department will try to recover the tax amount from supplier also and meanwhile, it will try to disallow the credit to recipient as the supplier has not paid the tax. Will it not amount double recovery of tax. We do understand that there is joint responsibility of payment of tax on supplier and recipient but the prime recovery should be from supplier and if he fails then only recovery should be made from recipient.

On second point also, normally department tries to recover the ITC from the taxpayer if there is shortage in receipt of material. Even in Excise regime, there was larger bench decision that if it is normal loss (for which recipient does not raise debit note) then credit will not be recovered. But if it is abnormal loss then only credit should be reversed. But under GST, the department has once again started litigation and maintained that decisions of earlier regime are not applicable in GST. There will be another round of litigation.
 
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