Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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