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 WAIVER OF INTEREST IN CASE OF NON PAYMENT WITHIN 180 DAYS AND REVERSAL OF CREDIT THEREOF ??

GST UPDATE ON WAIVER OF INTEREST IN CASE OF NON PAYMENT WITHIN 180 DAYS AND REVERSAL OF CREDIT THEREOF ??
We have prepared a series of amendment proposed in recent GST council meeting. This update is also in continuation of the same. One more amendment proposed by GST council is waiver of interest on reversal of credit on non-payment within 180 days to supplier of goods.
The present relevant provision of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as follows -­
 
Where a recipient fails to pay to the supplier of goods or services or both, other than the supplies on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis, the amount towards the value of supply along with tax payable thereon within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, an amount equal to the input tax credit availed by the recipient shall be added to his output tax liability, along with interest thereon, in such manner as may be prescribed.
Therefore, if a person has availed input tax credit on inward supplies of goods or services or both and has not paid the amount due to the supplier within the time span of 180 days from the date of availing the credit, then such person shall have to reverse the amount of credit already availed in respect of that transaction. Such credit earlier availed will be added back to the output tax liability of the registered person. Apart from this aspect of reversal of credit on non-payment of the invoice value, there was also a clause of payment of interest on such procrastination.
This matter can be conveniently explained with the help of an example given below :
For example: Mr X, of Jodhpur has purchased goods from Mr.Z, of Delhi worth Rs 100,000/- on 1.08.2017. Such purchases are taxable with the rate 12% under GST. Therefore amount of IGST involved here is Rs 12000/-. Mr. X has received the goods on 15.08.2017. Mr X has taken input tax credit of such amount of IGST on 15.08.2017. Later on Mr X failed to pay the invoice value of 1,12,000/- to Mr Z even after 180 days from the date of taking credit i.e. upto 11.2.2018. This delay of payment will now require Mr X to reverse the credit of IGST, which shall be added back to output tax liability ledger. Mr. X reverses the credit on exact date of 11.2.2018. Also, he has to pay interest, calculated @ 18% on the amount IGST 12000/-. Time period involved for such calculation of interest will be commencing immediately from the date of availing credit and continuing till the date of reversal.  Suppose, Mr. X has made payment on 18.3.2018 then he can take credit back on such date.
But normally, the person taking the credit is not aware of the fact that 180 days has elapsed and he has not made the payment to supplier. He forgot to reverse the credit. The departmental audit comes and point out the same. Meanwhile the payment has been made and he is eligible to take the credit back also. Like in present example, the payment is made on 18.03.2018 by Mr. X. Hence, the interest will be charged from the date of taking credit on 15.08.2017 to date of re-eligible to take credit i.e.15.03.2018. There is no need of reversal as he is now eligible to take the credit once again.
But, there were certain recommendations made during the 28th meeting of the GST council held by the Ministry of Finance. One of such recommendations involved an amendment made to the above explained concept of delayed payment which states that ifthe recipient fails to pay the due amount to the supplier within 180 days from the date of availing credit, the input tax credit availed by the recipient will be reversed, but liability to pay interest is being done away with.
This can be interpreted in two ways. To start with, according to the first view it can be held that now there will no payment of interest and only consequence of such non-payment will be reversal of ITC already availed, thereby leading to NIL cost.
Now come again to example in hand. In first situation, Mr. X has reversed the credit on 11.02.2018. No need to pay the interest. He can again take the credit on 18.03.2018 when payment is made by Mr. X. There is no problem.
Situation 2 in above referred example wherein Mr. X forgets to reverse the credit. The audit points out the same. Meanwhile he has already made the payment to Mr. Z. Now he is re-eligible to take the credit. No need of reversal now. But the point is that he needs to pay the interest also. No interest is payable for both the periods i.e from 15.08.2017 to 11.02.2018 and also for the period from 11.02.2018 to 18.03.2018. The view taken above suggests the same. This seems to be absurd result. No reversal as well as no interest payment. Then nobody will do reversal under this provision.
Yet another view to this recommendation can be taken that there will be no complete waiver of interest. The waiver is only for the period when the assessee ought to have reversed the credit. The period after that date is his output liability and he has to pay the interest for remaining period. Hence, the interest is to be paid after 180 days if he has not reversed the credit. This concept can be more clearly explained via continuing to previous example:
Mr. X has not reversed the credit in situation 2. The audit has pointed out the same. He need not to reverse the credit as he has become re-eligible by making payment to Mr. Z. He needs not to pay the interest for the period from 15.08.2017 to 11.02.2018. But interest will be recovered for the period from 11.02.2018 to 18.03.2018 as it was his output liability. This seems to be more logical and legal interpretation.

Thus, there is ambiguity with respect to treatment of interest on the payment made to the supplier by the recipient.The notification has not been received so far. We shall wait till the notification is issued by the Government officials to clear the ambiguities arose by the press release released by the officials.

 
    
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