Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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