Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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