Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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