Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update on whether ITC pertaining to debit notes can be denied on the basis of linkage to original invoice.

GST update on whether ITC pertaining to debit notes can be denied on the basis of linkage to original invoice.
GST regime which was introduced with aim to provide seamless credit to the purchaser. But with passage of time the same seems to be going away from taxpayer. With the frequent changes in provisions regarding claiming of credit and introductions of Rule 36(4), Rule 86(b) etc. it has become a mammoth task to claim the rightful eligible ITC. Recently the ruling by Gujarat AAR also aims at further blockage of credit by disallowing credit on certain debit notes issued for earlier years.
Gujarat AAR in the matter of M/S I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd. [Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/10/2021 decided on January 20, 2021] held the applicant cannot claim Input Tax Credit in relation to CGST and SGST separately in debit notes issued by the supplier in current financial year i.e. 2020-21, towards the transactions for the period 2018-19.
Assessee was engaged in manufacturing and supply of toys made of plastic and/or rubber or both wherein on realization that certain output supply was billed less than the actual for which it wishes to issue debit note for the same with GST effect. The transactions pertain to 2018-19. Assessee contended that Recently GSTN has enabled the facility to delink reporting of debit note or credit note corresponding with their original invoice. Earlier, to report debit or credit note in GSTR 1/ GSTR 6, tax payers had to link each to their corresponding Invoice. Therefore, the provision of section 16(4) cannot be invoked.
AAR believed that requirement in case of debit note is that the serial number and date of the corresponding tax invoice is to be provided in the debit note. Therefore, the very purpose of making the aforementioned entry in the debit note is to enable the recipient of the supply to correlate the said debit note with the original invoice issued by the supplier and to take credit of the same in his input tax credit account. Thus from a combined reading of the definition of ‘debit note’, sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the particulars to be provided in a debit note issued under GST, it is amply clear that the debit note is not an independent document or an invoice in itself and is connected to an invoice as it is issued in pursuance to change in value of an invoice. It, therefore, follows that the financial year to which a debit note pertains, is invariably the financial year in which the original invoice (related to the said debit note) was issued. Thus, the credit on debit note persuading to 2018-19 cannot be claimed in 2020-21.
Section 34(3) which provides that where one or more tax invoices have been issued for supply of any goods or services or both and the taxable value or tax charged in that tax invoice is found to be less than the taxable value or tax payable in respect of such supply, the registered person, who has supplied such goods or services or both, shall issue to the recipient one or more debit notes for supplies made in a financial year containing the prescribed particulars. Other than this act does not specifically speaks about debit notes regarding time limit.
Further analyzingSec. 16 (4) which provides A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the due date of furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or invoice relating to such debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.
The phrase "invoice relating to such" in the above provision was omitted vide Section 120 of the Finance Act, 2020 and this omission has taken effect from 01.01.2021 vide Notification 92/2020-Central Tax Dt. 22.12.2020. 
Also, after amendment where the de-linkage was done it is pertinent that the time limit under section 16(4) in case of debit note also applies from the date of debit note. For example, if the discrepancy has come to notice after September 2019 and debit note is issued in October 2019 whose original invoice was of March 2019, then the said limit under section 16(4) applies from date of debit note. And new limit will fall till September 2020.
The above interpretation will be benefit at large for the assessee and his will very much also encourage the genuine taxpayer and also ensure the primary intention of government authority to provide seamless ITC. But AAR ruling has given a different interpretation. AAR is going against the plain and simple language. So, the legal battle will go on this issue. To avoid the same, Government should come forward with the clarification on this issue. This will save time and money of both department as well as of taxpayers.
 
This is solely for educational purpose.
 
You can reach us at new.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21and follow us on linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16/
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