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 20.09.2016

INTEREST ON DELAYED SANCTION OF REFUND

 
GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION:-
 
 
INTEREST ON DELAYED SANCTION OF REFUND:-It is provided that if any tax refundable under section 38 to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under section 38(1), interest at the rate as specified in the notification shall be payable in respect of such refund from the date immediately after expiry of the due date for sanction of refund under section 38 till the date of refund of such tax. At present, under Central Laws, similar provision is contained in section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which states that if refund is not granted within three months from the date of receipt of application, applicant shall be paid interest from the date immediately expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till date of refund of such duty. Although, the provisions under earlier laws and that proposed in GST appear to be similar but there is difference.
 
 
According to present Central Excise Laws, interest is payable if the refund claim is not granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of refund application. However, in GST Law, there is additional condition for claiming interest and interest is not payable simply on expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application. As per Explanation to section 38(5), application shall mean complete application containing all information as may be prescribed. Hence, if refund application is filed on say for example 15.04.2016 but certain documents were not enclosed with the refund application. The required documents were submitted on 25.04.2016 and the refund was sanctioned on 22.07.2016, then as per GST Law, no interest will be payable as there is no delay in sanction of refund claim. The date of receipt of application shall be 25.04.2016 and not 15.04.2016. However, as per present Central Laws, interest is payable from 15.07.2016 to 22.07.2016. Therefore, the GST law seeks to make stringent provisions for grant of interest on delayed sanction of refund claims because the date of receipt of application shall be counted from the date when application contains all information as is prescribed. It will be give a weapon in the hands of department and they will return the refund claim on the one pretext or another so that no interest is payable by them. We have seen such type of practice of department and ultimately saying that the refund claim is time barred but the tribunal and High Court has held that the refund claim is deemed to be filed from the date of initial filing of claim.
 
Furthermore, explanation to section 39 provides that where order of refund is made by appellate authority or tribunal or court, then such order shall be deemed to be order under section 38(4) or 38(4A) thereby meaning that the interest in such cases will be payable from date immediately after expiry of due date of sanction of refund till the date of refund of tax. This provision is also presently there in Central Laws but the assessees rarely get interest from the expiry of three months from the date of original filing of refund application. This is for the reason that the revenue authorities interpret that the time limit of 3 months is to be counted from the date of filing of consequential refund claim after the order of the appellate tribunal. The revenue authorities are reluctant to grant interest from expiry of three months from date of original filing of refund claims. The issue has also been considered by Apex Court in the case of  Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India [2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.)] but even then, the hapless assessees are not granted interest. When taking refund of duty is tedious task, taking interest on delayed sanction of refund will definitely not be easy.
 

 
 
 
You may also visit our FB page at the following link
 
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