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

IGST ON ADVANCE RECIEVED FOR EXPORTS

IGST ON ADVANCE RECIEVED FOR EXPORTS

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION
 
IGST ON ADVANCE RECIEVED FOR EXPORTS:-
 
The government has released the revised CGST Act, IGST Act and Formats for various returns to be filed in GST regime. However, harmonious study of the material released by the government is leading to confusions for which there are no solutions. What can one really do is to wait for a suitable clarification from the government. This update seeks to analyse the applicability of IGST on advances received for export of goods/services.
 
Before proceeding to discuss the ambiguity, it is pertinent to refer to section 17 of the Revised IGST Act, 2016 which states that various provisions of CGST Act relating to registration, valuation, time of supply of goods, time of supply of services, input tax credit and utilization thereof, distribution of input tax credit by an Input Service Distributor, job work, accounts and records, payment, tax deduction at source, return, tax collection at source, audit, assessment, adjudication, demands, refunds, interest, recovery of tax, offences and penalties, inspection, search and seizure, prosecution andpower to arrest, appeals, review, advance ruling and compounding shall be applicable for levy of IGST as well. Consequently, we can say that the provisions pertaining to time of supply of goods contained in section 12 shall also be applicable for levy of IGST. Similarly, the provisions pertaining to time of supply of services contained in section 13 shall also be applicable for levy of IGST.
 
The section 12 pertaining to time of supply of goods states that the time of supply of goods shall be earliest of date of issue of invoice by the supplier or the last date of issuing invoice or the date of receipt of payment. Furthermore, the residuary sub-section (5) states that in cases where it is not possible to determine the time of supply under earlier provisions, the time of supply shall be due date of filing return where periodical return is to be filed or date of payment of CGST/SGST in any other case. Similar provisions are contained in section 13 pertaining to time of supply of services. Thus, one may conclude, that in case of export of goods or services, if any advance is received, the date of receipt of advance shall be treated as time of supply.
 
At the same time, it is pertinent to refer the meaning of export of goods given in section 2(5) means taking goods out of India to a place outside India. However, meaning of supply is stated as that defined in section 3 of CGST Act, 2016. Now, in case of exports, for the purpose of levy of IGST, when will the supply be said to have been made will be a matter of dispute. Although, export means taking out of India but there is no clear cut provision for export in the definition of supply. Therefore, in case of advance received for exports, whether IGST will be payable at the time of receipt of advance or not will be a question that is difficult to answer.
 
Simultaneously, if one pursues thedraft return formats, the GSTR-1 serial no. 10 pertains to details of supplies exported including deemed exports but only when invoices have been issued and export has been concluded as the details of shipping bill is to be given. Furthermore, serial no. 10A pertains to amendment to supplies exported including deemed exports in cases of revision of invoice. However, serial no. 11 of the GSTR-1 speaks of tax liability arising on account of time of supply without issuance of invoice in the same period. On perusal of the entries made in serial no. 11, it is found that there is no clarification as regards liability of tax in cases of advances received for exports. Since there is no specific mention of tax liability for advances received against domestic supplies only, it is presumed that even the advances received for exports will have to be captured in GSTR-1. However, this raises doubts as regards liability of payment of IGST in cases where the exports are being done on payment of IGST. Not only this, one may also ponder whether debit is required in the bond if the exports are being made without payment of duty in such cases.
 
Well, if the exporters are made liable to pay IGST even on advances received in lieu of probable exports, they will definitely be at disadvantageous position and it will lead to more compliance.
 
 
Visit us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/
 

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