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 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