Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

Whether cash underlying in electronic cash ledger amounts to payment of tax without fulfilling any offsetting requirement? #035/2020-21

Whether cash underlying in electronic cash ledger amounts to payment of tax without fulfilling any offsetting requirement? #035/2020-21

Whether cash underlying in electronic cash ledger amounts to payment of tax without fulfilling any offsetting requirement?
Since July 2017, implementation of GST in India is successful due to GSTN. But still there are many issues and scope of improvement in functioning and technical performance of GSTN. Taxpayers face numerous problems while filing returns, statements, replying to SCNs etc on online portal. Time and again, taxpayers have made representations to the government to improve the competency and potential of GST portal.
Taxpayers struggled with delays in receiving the one-time-password (OTP), maybe due to the malfunctioning of email service providers or local internet issues. Apart from that, there are complaints like payments not getting reflected on the taxpayer’s dashboard, the GSTN system is not efficient of handling last moment heavy traffic onboard, the system is taking longer to feature the payments on the dashboard, several OTPs are received for single return filing, data uploading takes longer than usual, returns when previewed are showing incorrect numbers, data uploaded using ASP/GSP takes additional time to reflect and the system frequently logs out the user.
Recently, a case has been pronounced dealing with technical glitch occurred while filing GSTR 3B and its associated legal consequences (Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court).
The matter under consideration was whether assessee was liable to pay interest on the amount of tax liability pertaining to the month of August 2017 which was filed in September 2017 but the tax payment was declared in the return filed for the month of September 2019 (filed in October 2019). 
Against the said tax liability, requisite cash payment was made well within the due date of payment i.e. 21st September 2017 but the liability was declared in the GSTR 3B return filed for September 2019. The asseesee received notice from the department that they are liable to make payment of interest for the period 21.09.2017 to 20.10.2019.
The assessee contended that while filing GSTR 3B return for the August 2017 on 20.09.2017, the common portal was not running properly   due   to   heavy   load   because   millions   of registered   persons   were   trying   to   upload   their returns.   Owing to the said technical glitch, entire GSTR-3B was uploaded with zero amounts. Although the tax liability was uploaded as zero, the actual cash liability (after ITC) of around Rs. 114 Crore was duly deposited in cash ledger of the assessee well within the due date.
The   asseesee,   therefore,   immediately informed the concerned Assistant Commissioner incharge   of   its   unit   about   the   payment   and discharge   of   its   liability   for   August   2017   and also about the inability to correct the GSTR­3B return   submitted   on   the   GSTN   portal.   The petitioners   were   advised   to   approach   the   Help Desk forum to sort out the issue. Thereafter, the petitioners, time and again, made representations to   the   concerned   officers,   however,   despite eighteen   months   having   been   passed   and   since there   was   no   progress,   the assessee was constrained to file the captioned petition.

He pleaded that he attempted to declare correct tax liability but could not upload the same due to technical glitch and duly deposited entire cash liability in cash ledger as well. However, he could not offset the tax liability with the cash/credit balance as the liability was uploaded as zero. Thus, the liability payable in cash was left unutilised in the cash ledger only and it never got set off. As the liability was not knocked off against the cash ledger balance within the due date, Department insisted upon interest liability.
 Hon’ble High court held in the favour of assessee that assessee had duly discharged his tax liability by depositing the requisite funds in Cash ledger and without any of the fault of assessee but because of the technical glitch the same could not be offset, therefore it will be in interest of justice not to fasten interest liability upon the assessee. Moreover, assessee has tried to contact different authorities for help in this matter but it got delayed without any mistake of assessee every time.
Gujarat High Court accordingly, allowed the petition and permitted to file manually GSTR3B for August 2017 with correct and true details and   the   respondents   are   directed   to   accept   and acknowledge   such   GSTR­3B   manually   filed   by   the assessee for   August   2017.
This judgment is really a path breaking judgment in case of various technical issues faced by the taxpayers. The department has always questioned assessee in cases where though the cash was duly deposited in the cash ledger but due to issues in GST portal, the return is filed incorrect and the liability remains unoffsetted. This is truly a remarkable judgment to heal the wounds of assessee caused while making payment of interest without their mistake. We hope that the department follows the court ruling and start avoiding sending undue notices to assessee.

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