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 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