CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Calcutta High Court’s Verdict on GST Pre-Deposit Requirements

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:29:32 +0000

Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court addressed the clarification of GST pre-deposit requirements, specifically focusing on the interpretation discrepancy between the GST Department and the GST Law.

Facts of the Case:

Issue:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Respondent’s Argument:

Held:

category

GSTN Issues Advisory on Automatic HSN-wise Summary Population in GSTR-1 Table 12 from e-Invoices

editor — Wed, 10 Apr 2024 05:22:53 +0000

The GSTN has released an important Advisory No. 630 dated April 09, 2024, regarding the automatic population of HSN-wise summaries from e-Invoices into Table 12 of GSTR-1.

GSTN is pleased to announce the introduction of a new feature that enables the automatic population of HSN-wise summaries from e-Invoices into Table 12 of GSTR-1 on the GST portal. This feature facilitates the direct drafting of HSN data into Table 12 based on e-Invoice data.

It is important to note that the HSN-wise summary data automatically populated into Table 12 is provided for your convenience. However, it is advised to reconcile this data with your records before final submission.

Any discrepancies or errors identified should be manually corrected or added to Table 12 before the final submission.

For further details, please refer to the Advisory accessible at: Link to Advisory

category

Collaborative Audits by Central and State GST Authorities Targeting Businesses

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 06:48:00 +0000

Beginning this fiscal year, there will be a collaborative effort between Central and State Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities to conduct audits within the indirect tax framework.

This joint approach is expected to bring significant advantages to taxpayers by eliminating repetitive notifications and inquiries. Current industry data suggests that around 11,000 cases are either duplicated or entangled in legal disputes due to investigations by both Central and State agencies. Various Central GST zones have issued internal communications instructing officials to collaborate with their state counterparts on audits to ensure better coordination, as per sources.

The concept of conducting audits collaboratively was proposed during a national coordination meeting last month to streamline tax enforcement processes. The directives indicate that Central GST officers should also participate in audits conducted by State GST teams to improve SGST officers’ audit capabilities and facilitate the exchange of crucial compliance information. To support these joint audit efforts, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has instructed each zone to devise a specific framework.

The responsibility for implementation, delegated to zonal heads, aims to optimize time and resources. Experts in the industry believe this initiative will enhance the fairness and efficiency of the audit process, providing a more comprehensive examination that benefits both tax authorities and taxpayers. It will help in avoiding redundant procedures and shield taxpayers from undergoing multiple audits for the same issues.

Furthermore, the CBIC has directed its officers to halt investigations into offenses already under scrutiny by state GST officials or for which notifications have been issued.

Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/central-state-gst-officials-to-conduct-joint-audits-of-firms/articleshow/109143298.cms?from=mdr

category

Tax Liability cannot be imposed merely because the financial statement did not provide State-wise turnover

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 10:14:35 +0000

The imposition of tax liability solely based on the absence of state-wise turnover information in financial statements has been contested in the legal realm. This matter was addressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a recent case involving Tvl. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) [WP No. 3534 OF 2024, dated February 16, 2024].

Facts:

Tvl. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) operated as a private general insurance firm, specializing in insurance services. On August 16, 2021, the Petitioner was served with an audit notice by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) (FAC) (“the Respondent”). In response, the Petitioner diligently furnished the necessary documents and addressed the discrepancies highlighted in the audit reports. Subsequently, after issuing both an intimation and a show cause notice (“the SCN”), the Competent Authority issued the assessment order on December 30, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”).

Within the Impugned Order, the issue of defect No. 10 arose, relating to variations in turnover between the Profit & Loss account and balance sheet, as opposed to the figures in GSTR-9. The Petitioner explained that these disparities stemmed from the inclusion of Pan-India operations in the financial statements, whereas GSTR-9 solely focused on turnover within Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner even provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, specifically outlining the turnover within Tamil Nadu, amounting to Rs. 80,89,05,068/-. However, despite this clarification and despite the Petitioner having already paid taxes on the stated turnover, the Respondent imposed State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) at 18% each (36% combined) on the aforementioned turnover.

Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the Petitioner sought recourse by filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

Top of Form

Issue:

The central question revolves around whether tax liability can be established solely due to the absence of state-wise turnover information in financial statements.

Held:

In its ruling on Writ Petition No. 3534 OF 2024, the Hon’ble Madras High Court made the following determinations:

The Court acknowledged the variation in turnover for entities operating across multiple states, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing total turnover from state-wise turnover.
It criticized the Competent Authority's decision to impose GST at a higher rate of 36% instead of the appropriate 18%, despite the Petitioner having already paid tax on the turnover in question.
The Impugned Order was deemed invalid and the case was remanded to the Respondent for reconsideration.
Furthermore, the Court directed the Respondent to afford the Petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing, and instructed issuance of a fresh assessment order within a maximum period of two months, in compliance with legal provisions.

category

Mandatory E-Invoicing for Businesses with Turnover above INR 5 Crores

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:17:18 +0000

The GSTN, in its recent Advisory No. 628 dated April 3, 2024, has made e-Invoicing mandatory for businesses with a turnover exceeding INR 5 crores starting from April 1, 2024.

If your turnover surpasses INR 5 crores in the fiscal year 2023-2024, it is imperative to commence e-Invoicing from the subsequent financial year, commencing April 1, 2024.

Businesses meeting the notification criteria yet not enabled on the portal can self-enable for e-Invoicing by accessing https://einvoice.gst.gov.in. They can report through any of the 4 new Invoice Registration Portals (IRPs), ranging from e-Invoice IRP 3 to e-Invoice IRP 6.

For further details, please refer to the Advisory at: Advisory No. 628

category

Validity of Assessment Orders in Light of Assessee’s Response

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:01:20 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Emco Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. 1622 of 2024, February 27, 2024], addressed the issue of the validity of an assessment order when the Assessee’s response hadn’t been duly considered. The court emphasized the importance of taking into account the Assessee’s reply before issuing an assessment order. It was highlighted that if further details were needed, it was the responsibility of the Revenue Department to request them from the Assessee.

Facts of the case:

The case stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 24, 2023, issued by the Revenue Department against Emco Cables Pvt. Ltd. The notice accused the Assessee of under-declaring output tax, claiming excessive Input Tax Credit (ITC), and claiming ITC from canceled dealers and non-taxpayers. The Assessee responded to the notice with a detailed reply. However, the subsequent order dated December 29, 2023 (Impugned Order), found the Assessee’s reply unsatisfactory and directed further action without adequately considering the response.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around whether an assessment order lacking consideration of the Assessee’s response could be deemed valid.

Held:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in W.P. 1622 of 2024 outlined the following key points:

Emphasized the obligation of the Proper Officer to thoroughly assess the Assessee's reply before forming an opinion on its sufficiency.
Noted the failure of the Proper Officer to seek additional details from the Assessee if deemed necessary, rather than dismissing the response outright.
Criticized the lack of evidence suggesting that the Proper Officer had indeed reviewed the Assessee's submission.
Set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the case back to the Proper Officer for reconsideration.

category

Implications of Non-Compliance with GST Return Filing under Section 62 of CGST Act

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:02:30 +0000

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, implemented in India in 2017, mandates registered taxpayers to regularly file returns to declare their taxable supplies and corresponding tax liabilities. However, failure to comply with this obligation can lead to significant consequences under Section 62 of the CGST Act.

Understanding Section 62 of CGST Act:

Subsection (1):

Non-Filing Obligations: This subsection comes into effect when a registered taxpayer fails to file the prescribed return under Section 39 (monthly return) or Section 45 (annual return), even after receiving notice under Section 46.
Authority of Proper Officer: The designated official empowered by the government can assess the tax liability in the absence of a return by estimating it to the best of their judgment, based on available or gathered information.
Assessment Order Issuance: The officer issues a formal assessment order (Form GST-ASMT 13) determining the estimated tax liability, interest, and any applicable penalties.
Time Limit: The assessment order must be issued within five years from the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.

Subsection (2):

Rectification Opportunity: Taxpayers have a chance to rectify non-filing by submitting a valid return within 30 days of receiving the assessment order, leading to the withdrawal of the order.
Continued Liabilities: Even if the assessment order is withdrawn, the taxpayer remains liable to pay interest and late fees as per Section 50(1) and Section 47 of the CGST Act, respectively.

Additional Provisions:

Penalties under Section 62 of CGST Act:

Interest: Interest is levied on the assessed tax liability as per Section 50(1) of the CGST Act.
Late Fees: Additional late fees are charged under Section 47 for each day of delay in filing the return.
Potential Prosecution: Severe cases of non-compliance may lead to criminal prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act.

Consequences of Non-Compliance under Section 62:

Key Points of Section 62:

Applicability: Applies to registered persons failing to file returns under Section 39 or Section 45.
Assessment by Proper Officer: The officer estimates tax liability based on available information within a specified time frame.
Time Limit for Assessment: Assessment can be initiated within five years from the due date for furnishing the annual return.

Relief for Non-Filers:

Conclusion:

Section 62 of the CGST Act serves as a deterrent against non-filing of GST returns, empowering authorities to assess tax liability and impose penalties. However, it also provides an opportunity for rectification within a stipulated time frame, albeit with certain consequences. Taxpayers are strongly advised to adhere to prescribed deadlines to avoid unnecessary assessments, penalties, and legal complications.

category

Assessment Order not sustainable when vague in nature

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:37:30 +0000

In the legal case of Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), as documented in Writ Petition No. 4510 of 2024 dated February 26, 2024, the Madras High Court responded by granting the writ petition. This decision was based on the assertion that the Assessment Order lacked clarity and proper justification.

Facts of the case:

Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. initiated a writ petition contesting an assessment order issued on December 31, 2023 (referred to as “the Impugned Order”), which centered around disparities between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B and that reflected under GSTR-2A. The petitioner argued that the Impugned Order, issued by the Revenue Department (referred to as “the Respondent”), lacked specificity. The sole observation noted in the Impugned Order was the rejection of the petitioner’s response.

Held:

The Madras High Court, in Writ Petition No. 4510 of 2024, overturned the Impugned Order. The court held that the order lacked specificity, which was the basis for confirming the demand for tax, interest, and penalty. The High Court directed that the matter be reconsidered and a fresh order issued after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

category

Central GST Authority cannot initiate proceedings when State GST Authority has already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:00:24 +0000

The Gauhati High Court, in the matter of Rajesh Mittal vs Union of India [WP(C) No. 371 of 2024 dated January 25, 2024], based its decision on sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). It ordered a halt to the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Department. The court ruled that the Central GST Authority had improperly issued the Show Cause Notice (SCN) when the State GST Authorities had already issued an SCN on the same issue.

Facts of the case:

Rajesh Mittal, hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner," was served a Show Cause Notice (SCN) by both the State GST Authorities and the Central GST Authority.
The State GST Authorities issued the SCN on December 01, 2023, while the Central GST Authority issued theirs on December 27, 2023.
The notices accused the Petitioner of wrongfully availing input tax credit (ITC), violating Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act").
The Petitioner responded to the notices accordingly.

Held:

The Gauhati High Court, in the case of WP(C) No. 371 of 2024 dated January 25, 2024, based its decision on sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act.

category

Prohibition of Concurrent Proceedings for the Same Period under GST Legislation

editor — Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:15:17 +0000

Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court addressed the issue of whether simultaneous proceedings for the same period under both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act) are permissible. The court, in the case of Subhash Agarwalla v. State of Assam [Case No. WP(C)/ 683/2024 dated February 12, 2024], ruled that the initiation of proceedings under either the CGST Act or the SGST Act precludes the initiation of parallel proceedings for the same period under the other act. Consequently, any order issued under one act remains suspended until the specified returnable date. This article examines the case of Subhash Agarwalla v. State of Assam, providing insights into its background, the court’s decision, and its implications for the broader landscape of GST law.

Facts:

Subhash Agarwalla (“the Petitioner”) received a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated November 23, 2022 (“the Impugned SCN”) from the SGST Authority under Section 73 of the SGST Act, regarding potential liabilities for the Financial Year 2017-2018. Subsequently, another Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated April 27, 2023 (“the Impugned SCN”) was issued by the CGST Authority, covering the Financial Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020. Both notices alleged the improper utilization of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) by the Petitioner, violating Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/SGST Act. Following the Impugned SCN, the CGST Authority issued an Order-in-Original on November 14, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”). Subsequently, the SGST Authority passed its own Order-in-Original on December 11, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”).

Issue:

The primary issue at hand is whether initiating two parallel proceedings for the same period is permissible under GST Law.

Held:

The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, in Case No. WP(C)/ 683/2024, held the following:

Conclusion:

The ruling by the Guwahati High Court establishes a precedent, emphasizing the prohibition of simultaneous proceedings for the same period under the CGST and SGST Acts. This decision reflects the legislative intent to prevent redundancy and ensure an efficient adjudication process. As businesses navigate GST compliance complexities, understanding such legal nuances is crucial to mitigate unnecessary legal complications.

category