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

UDATE on Issues regarding E-way Bill

UDATE on Issues regarding E-way Bill
This update intends to discuss about the issues arising in case of generation of E-way bill in case of Job Work: -
1.      In case of inter-state movement of goods/capital goods for job work, the value cap of Rs. 50,000/- is not applicable. This is due to third proviso to Section 138(1) of the CGST Act which reads as follows:-
 
Provided also that where goods are sent by a principal located in one State or Union territory to a job worker located in any other State or Union territory, the e-way bill shall be generated either by the principal or the job worker, if registered, irrespective of the value of the consignment:”
 
The same wording is used in GST Rules of Rajasthan Government. Thus, value limit is not applicable in case of movement of goods for job work from one state to another. But the same is not applicable in case of movement of goods within state. Hence, the limit of Rs. 50,000/- is applicable for movement of goods on job work basis within state of Rajasthan.
 
2.      Further, there is no relaxation of distance in Rajasthan as is being done in Gujarat where e-way bill is applicable on movement of goods from one city to another city. Hence, e-way bill is to be generated in state of Rajasthan for every movement of goods in a vehicle. Hence, the job work movement of goods is also not exempted and we have to generate e-way bill of each and every movement of goods. Even the inputs/capital goods moving for repair and maintenance will also require e-way bill if the value of goods exceeds Rs. 50,000/-.  
Such type of repair works are quite frequently takes place in many industries. For example, Stainless steel patta patti industry sends machinery parts such as backup roll, work roll, coupling etc to the job worker on day-to-day basis for the process of grinding. Hence, e-way bill is to be generated for each such movement as the value of such parts is more than Rs. 50,000/-. 

3.      Moreover, e-way bill can be generated by principal or job worker in case of return back of goods by job worker. This has been provided in Rule 138 cited supra. Event the circular number 38/12/2018 dated 26.03.2018 also allows the movement of goods either by principal or job worker. This can be done either by endorsement of job work challan or by issuance of new challan by job worker. However, the e-way portal shows that option of “job work return” in inward transaction type and as soon as the same is entered then the address of registrant comes in “Bill to” column.   

Hence, it implies that the principal has also to generate e-way bill in case of return of job work. Normally, in industry the goods move from one job worker to another job worker. This is most common in textile industry. Goods move to one job worker for bleaching and then it send to another job worker for dyeing and thereafter to another job worker for printing and so on for finishing, washing, felt and packing. In each case, the principal has to generate e-way bill for each onward movement. Thus, it will make the procedure very cumbersome. The difficulty is immense if the principal is situated in another city.

Although the law as well as circular provides for the movement of goods by job worker but the e-way portal provides for job work return by principal only. The other option to job worker in case of return of job work goods generate the challan in other column. This anomaly in e-way portal is creating problems. Hence, in case of job work return, the portal should allow to enter name either in “Bill to” or “Bill from”. It will smoothen the process of e-way bill.
 
4.       Raw materials/Goods/ Machinery parts are sent for processing from one job worker to another job worker in various consignments. The material sent for processing is the intermediate material and have consignment value of more than Rs. 50,000/-. Since there is frequent movement of goods and that too in huge quantities, it is difficult to generate e-way bill for every movement of goods.

Besides, each e-way bill is required to be an adjunct to tax invoice or delivery challan and since the goods sent on job work involves several processes to be undertaken by different job workers, it is extremely complex to create new delivery challan with every movement of goods. In addition, if new delivery challans are issued every time, it will be intricate to keep their track record for the purpose of filing ITC-04. Hence, the requirement of issuance of e-way bill of labour intensive industry like textile and handicraft industry should be dispensed with.

5.      There was also practical difficulty pointed out by industry that movement of cars for repair work will also require e-way bill. Similarly, computer or mobile phone of more than Rs. 50,000/- for repairing will also require e-way bill. Even one scholar asked whether taking out car or mobile phone for official work will also require e-way bill. This seems to be very absurd. But author of this update does not have any answer to the same.

The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
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