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 06.09.2016

SECTION 49- AUDIT BY TAX AUTHORITIES

 
GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION:-
 
 
SECTION 49- AUDIT BY TAX AUTHORITIES:-
 
(1)                  The [Commissioner of CGST/Commissioner of SGST] or any officer authorised by him, by way of a general or a specific order, may undertake audit of the business transactions of any taxable person for such period, at such frequency and in such manner as may be prescribed.
 
(2)                   The tax authorities referred to in sub-section (1) may conduct audit at the place of business of the taxable person and/or in their office.
 
(3)                   The taxable person shall be informed, by way of a notice, sufficiently in advance, not less than fifteen working days, prior to the conduct of audit in the manner prescribed.
 
(4)                   The audit shall be carried out in a transparent manner and completed within a period of three months from the date of commencement of audit.
 
Provided that where the Commissioner is satisfied that audit in respect of such taxable person cannot be completed within three months from the date of commencement of audit, he may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months.
 
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, ‘commencement of audit’ shall mean the date on which the records and other documents, called for by the tax authorities, are made available by the taxable person or the actual institution of audit at the place of business, whichever is later.
 
(5)                   During the course of audit, the authorised officer may require the taxable person, to afford him the necessary facility to verify the books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, to furnish such information as he may require and render assistance for timely completion of the audit.
 
(6)                   On conclusion of audit, the proper officer shall without delay inform the taxable person, whose records are audited, of the findings, the taxable person’s rights and obligations and the reasons for the findings.
 
(7)                   Where the audit conducted results in detection of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit erroneously availed, the proper officer may initiate action under section 51.
 
 
It is pertinent to note that presently, under Service Tax Laws, there is a big question mark on whether audit can be conducted by service tax officers as the Delhi High Court has struck down Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 in case of TRAVELITE (INDIA) VS UNION OF INDIA [2014 (35) S.T.R. 653 (DEL)]. Moreover, recently, even the new Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 has been declared as ultra vires by the same Delhi High Court in the case of MEGA CABS PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA [2016 (43) S.T.R. 67 (DEL)] on the ground that revenue authorities are not empowered to conduct audit of records of assessee and the audit may be conducted only by Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant. In light of the present context, the incorporation of provision regarding conduct of audit by revenue officers in GST should be re-looked. Furthermore, at present, there is no statutory provision for audit under Central Excise/Service Tax Laws but in the GST regime, it is proposed in section 42(4) that every registered taxable person whose turnover during a financial year exceeds the prescribed limit shall get his accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant or a Cost Accountant. It is pointed that when there is provision of statutory audit under the proposed GST regime and there is also provision of special audit being conducted by revenue department, then what is the need for incorporating provisions for conduct of audit by tax authorities.
 
 
 
On studying the above provisions, it is also worth noting that the audit by tax authorities shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of commencement of audit and this period may be further extended to six months by the Commissioner. Presently, there is no time period prescribed for audit conducted by departmental officers under Excise/Service Tax Laws and the audit is completed in maximum 15 days. However, the proposed GST regime provides that audit may be completed within 3 months and maximum within 6 months time period which is substantially high. With increased compliance by filing of 37 returns by an assessee on different dates in a month, if the revenue officers will conduct audit that may proceed upto 3 months, the assessee would hardly have time to conduct its business operations. Hence, the time limit for conducting audits should be revised on downward side.
 
 
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