Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON RULE 37A OF CGST RULES, 2017

GST UPDATE ON RULE 37A OF CGST RULES, 2017

Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 states that the Input tax credit shall be allowed to the recipient only if the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government exchequer. Now, in the 48th GST Council meeting, it was recommended to insert Rule 37A in CGST Rules, 2017 to prescribe the mechanism for reversal of input tax credit by a registered person in the event of non-payment of tax by the supplier. This proposal has been implemented vide Notification no. 26/2022 –Central Tax dated 26th December, 2022. This notification notifies the Central Goods and Services Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 through which rule 37A has been inserted in the rules. This rule is the subject matter of today’s GST update.

To start with, let us check the bare language of this rule: -

“37A. Reversal of input tax credit in the case of non-payment of tax by the supplier and re-availment thereof-

 

Where  input  tax  credit  has  been  availed  by  a  registered  person  in  the  return  in FORM GSTR-3B for a tax period in respect of such invoice or debit note, the details of which have been  furnished  by  the  supplier  in  the  statement  of  outward  supplies  in FORM GSTR-1 or  using  the invoice furnishing facility, but the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the tax period corresponding to the said  statement  of  outward  supplies  has  not  been  furnished  by  such  supplier  till  the  30th day  of September following the end of financial year in which the input tax credit in respect of such invoice or debit note has been availed, the said amount of input tax credit shall be reversed by the said registered person, while furnishing  a return in FORM GSTR-3B on or before the 30th day of November following the end of such financial year:

 

Provided that where the said amount of input tax credit is not reversed by the registered person in a return in FORM GSTR-3Bon or before the 30thday of November following the end of such financial year during which such input tax credit has been availed, such amount shall be payable by the said person along with interest thereon under section 50.

 

Provided further that where the said supplier subsequently furnishes the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the said tax period, the said registered person may re-avail the amount of such credit in the return in FORM GSTR-3B for a tax period thereafter.”.

The analysis of this rule makes it clear that: -

          It covers those invoices or debit note which were duly furnished in GSTR-1 or using Invoice furnishing facility but have not been included in GSTR-3B.

          This rule will apply if the supplier does not include the same in GSTR-3B of that particular tax period or subsequent tax period upto the 30th day of September following the end of financial year.

          In this case, the ITC so availed by the recipient shall be reversed while furnishing return in form GSTR-3B on or before the 30th day of November following the end of such financial year.

          If the said registered recipient does not reverse the said amount by due date; interest shall be payable under section 50.

          If the supplier subsequently furnishes GSTR-3B, the said recipient may re-avail the amount of ITC so reversed.

On analysis of this rule, it is ample clear that while framing this provision, the law makers have followed the easiest route rather than the right one. In the cases where the recipient has complied with all the conditions of availment of ITC as prescribed under section 16 of CGST Act, 2017; however, the supplier has defaulted in payment of tax; is it justified to ask the recipient to pay back the credit? The right way to deal with such situations is to get hold of the defaulting suppliers and follow the procedure already prescribed in chapter XV of CGST Act, 2017. When GST law prescribes the procedure how recovery will be made in cases where the supplier defaults; is it justified to ignore the same and prescribe a provision to hit the soft target – the innocent recipients who have complied with all the conditions for availment of ITC that are in their control. Can they be held guilty for the situations which are not in their control at all. Even if the law makers intend to secure the interest of Revenue, the right way would have been to prove the default or presence of guilty mind on part of recipients first, rather than asking for the reversal at the first place.

This rule 37A also create ambiguity in certain cases. Let us take an example. Suppose a supplier shows invoices of ? 50 lakhs in GSTR-1 filed by him. But he pays tax only on invoices of ? 28 lakhs. The differential amount being ? 22 lakhs is defaulted amount against which recovery can be made under newly inserted rule 37A. But while framing this rule, perhaps the law makers thought department has some sort of super power with the help of which it can ascertain on which invoices tax have not been paid in GSTR-3B. Now, if the supplier pays tax on some of these invoices subsequently. How will the department ascertain tax on which invoices remains unpaid and action should be taken against which recipients.

Further, the rule says if supplier defaults, the recipient must pay interest on the same; without any fault at his side. Interestingly, when subsequently the supplier pays tax, he may re-avail the ITC so reversed but what about the interest? Interest is always a loss, whether you pay it for your fault or for fault of others, right?

Let us hope the Government amends the relevant provisions to increase the strictness against the actual defaulters and stop punishing the innocent recipients without proving their fault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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