Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3536

Whether the recipient can avail full ITC of the GST charged on the supply by the supplier or proportionate reversal of the same is required in case of post-purchase discount given by the supplier?
Name-M/s. MRF Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu)
Citation- Order No. 5/AAR/2019 dated 22.01.2019
Issue- Whether the recipient can avail full ITC of the GST charged on the supply by the supplier or proportionate reversal of the same is required in case of post-purchase discount given by the supplier?
Brief Facts- MRF Ltd. (Applicant) intends to enter into an arrangement for setting up an interactive data exchange system between the buyer (being the applicant itself) and supplier of goods and services.
The reports generated by the system provide guidance to the applicant, to decide which invoices are eligible for discounts on early payment.

Submissions by Applicant-GST is paid by the supplier on the entire price of the goods without considering the discount. Recipient will pay the discounted price along with GST on the original price to the supplier. The Applicant states that the payment made by the recipient has to be construed as proper payment in compliance with Section 16(2) though there is an actual lower payment to the extent of discount. This is because the discount is not allowed as deduction for the purpose of payment of GST since the required conditions are not satisfied. There is no requirement to reverse ITC by the recipient attributable to the amount of discount so allowed for the reason that such discount is not considered by the supply for payment of GST and he is not entitled to issue any credit note for the discount amount including GST in terms of Section 34(1) and (2). Any post supply arrangement resulting in reduction in price should not alter the payment of GST by the supplier and the respective availment of ITC by the recipient. Any requirement of insistence for reversal of credit on the discount portion at the hands of the recipient is not warranted.

Contentions by Department-By virtue of section 15(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST), discounts which do not form a part of the purchase contracts are not allowed as deduction from the original price of the goods and accordingly suppliers are liable to pay tax on the full value of supply i.e. before such discount.

Further for the purpose of availing ITC, section 16(2) of the CGST Act, requires the recipient to pay to the supplier, the amount towards the value of supply along with the tax payable thereon within a period of one hundred eighty days from the date of issue of invoice.

Decision-In the instant case, the value of supply is the full undiscounted value indicated in the tax invoice on which the supplier would pay GST and the applicant makes payment only to the extent of the invoice value less the discount. Thus the applicant can avail only proportionate ITC i.e. credit attributable to invoice value less the discounts.

 Comments-Whilst, recently, CBIC had issued a clarification where it had recognized issuance of financial/commercial credit notes for carrying out commercial transaction between contracting parties, the instant AAR limits the credit to the recipient, which may not be in line with the intent considering that full amount of tax has been deposited in the Government treasury.
The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 16 links the availability of ITC with the payment duration in respect of supply of goods or services between the vendor and the customer. The proviso aims to restrict the input tax credit of inward supplies received by a taxpayer if the value of such inward supplies along with tax is not made to the vendor within a period of 180 days from the date of the invoice. This move, which is reminiscent of the Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, can be assumed to be inserted to safeguard the interest of the vendor by ensuring that he receives payment from the customer within 180 days. However, it is imperative to note here that the value of supply has been defined under section 15 of the Central goods and Service tax Act. The two sections are being introduced with their own objective. Therefore,the government should consider issuing an explicit clarification on the said issue to avoid any unwarranted and prolonged litigation on this aspect
 
 
 
 
 
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