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 THE SAGA OF TRANSITIONAL CREDIT CONTINUES 70/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON THE SAGA OF TRANSITIONAL CREDIT CONTINUES 70/2020-21
The remedy available in case of inability to file TRAN-1 or revise the wrongly filed TRAN-1 still continues as number of assessees are knocking the doors of High Courts. The landmark decision given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Brand Equity Treaties Pvt. Ltd. has provided much need relief not only to the petitioner but to every assessee who could not file TRAN-1 within the stipulated period by invoking the provisions of Limitation Act and specifying the last date of availing the benefit to be 30th June, 2020. However, as we all know that the favourable decisions pronounced by High Courts are often not accepted by the department, the revenue department has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision given in the case of M/s Brand Equity Treaties Pvt. Ltd. It has been recently reported that the Apex Court has stayed the operation of the said decision as revenue authorities have contended that the reference to provisions contained in Limitation Act is not possible when the limitation is prescribed in the Statue. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court had on earlier occasion on the similar issue had rejected Special Leave Petition filed by the department against the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India Vs Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It is apprehended that the retrospective amendment made effective under section 140 after the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Brand Equity Treaties Pvt. Ltd. is one of the main grounds of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
 
 
We have carried our detailed analysis on the decision in the case of M/s Brand Equity Treaties Pvt. Ltd. vide our GST update no. 45/2020-21. In our opinion, the retrospective amendment was not the sole reason for granting benefit by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and there were other grounds such as credit is vested right under Article 300A of the Constitution and that the time limit prescribed in Rule 117 is directory in nature and not mandatory. It is worth mentioning that recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has pronounced another favourable decision in the case of SKH Sheet Metals Components pronounced on 16.06.2020 wherein the aspect of retrospective amendment has also been considered.In the present case, the petitioner had filed TRAN-1 within the time limit but there was some mistake in claiming credit and wanted to revise the transitional credit which it was not able to do even after repeated requests. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted the relief by passing detailed order on the following points:-
 
  1. The GST system and its procedural fallibility and shortcomings:-It was held that even if it is assumed that petitioner committed mistake which is purely on account of human error, the law ought to provide remedial avenue. Since GST law is a major tax reform in indirect taxation, the difficulties faced in filing of the statutory forms is understandable. In this process, human errors cannot be ruled out and if they occur, the solution is not to criticize the taxpayer for the fault, but instead, the Government should endeavour to find a resolution. The government should support its citizens by making the burden of compliance and payment as simple as possible.
 
  1. The Finance (Amendment) Act, 2020 and its impact; Judgment in Brand Equity (supra):-The amendment to Section 140 came to be notified on 18th May 2020, vide notification No. 43/2020 dated 16th May 2020. Thus, the said amendment came into force after the date of the decision in Brand Equity (Supra). The said amendment was also not cited before the Court to contest the petitions. Nevertheless, all things considered, in spite of the amendment, it can be said without hesitation that the said decision is not entirely resting on the fact that statute [CGST Act] did not prescribe for any time limit for availing the transition of the input tax credit. There are several other grounds and reasons enumerated in the said decision that continue to apply with full rigour even today, regardless of amendment to section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
  1. Arbitrary distinction of timelines under Rules 117 & 117 (IA):-As the meaning of “technical difficulty on common portal” is not defined anywhere, the extension with the said condition is arbitrary.
 
  1. Concept of ITC and its significance; Whether procedural timelines for TRAN-1 are directory and mandatory?:-The purpose of the timelines prescribed is just to hasten the migration of taxes from the erstwhile regime to the new GST laws and for swift streamlining of the ITC. The timeline introduced by Rule 117 is purely procedural and the same was not treated as sacrosanct. The Central Government has continuously extended the same, by carving out an exception under Rule 117 (1A) and so the time limit has to be considered as directory in nature.
 
The above reasoning clearly reveals that the benefit of filing TRAN-1/revised TRAN-1 has been granted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by observing number of factors and moreover, the benefit is granted after considering the retrospective amendment made in the section 140. This decision has ignited hopes regarding favourable decision by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Brand Equity Treaties Pvt. Ltd.
 
If we observe other rulings pronounced recently, it is found that in another case, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has allowed benefit in the case of M/sMangla Hoist Pvt. Ltd.rendered on 17th June, 2020 wherein the contention of the revenue department that they have filed Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court was rejected on the grounds that there is no stay granted. However, as discussed, the Supreme Court has granted stay in the case of M/s Brand Equity Treaties Pvt. Ltd. on 19.06.2020.
 
To sum up, in our opinion, the assessees should avail this one time opportunity and resort to file their TRAN-1 either on GST portal or manually before 30.06.2020 so that in case the Supreme Court affirms the verdict of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the assessees are able to avail the benefit granted by the Delhi High Court. We hope the battle of carry forward of transitional credit is put to rest soon by the Apex Court.
This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21.
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