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 |

Supreme Court issues notices on challenge to anti-profiteering rules

editor — Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:25:32 +0000

The Supreme Court has issued notices to the central government, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), the Goods and Services (GST) Council, and the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA), which is now under the purview of the Competition Commission of India. These notices come in response to a petition filed by Swati Realty, challenging a Delhi High Court decision that upheld the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions related to the GST system. Swati Realty argues that the High Court failed to recognize that these provisions are unconstitutional.

Earlier in February, the Supreme Court had also issued a notice to the Union government on a similar matter. The advocate representing the real estate player in the Supreme Court highlighted that the Delhi High Court agreed with the real estate companies’ assertion that the methodology employed by the NAA is flawed, especially in the real estate sector where there is no direct link between turnover and input tax credit (ITC) for a specific period.

The NAA was established in November 2017 to ensure that companies pass on the benefits of ITC and GST reductions to consumers by reducing prices. Since December 2022, the Competition Commission of India has been addressing complaints of profiteering by companies.

In January, the Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions, stating that they aim to ensure a proportional reduction in prices when GST rates are lowered or due to ITC. The court ruled that these provisions are in the public interest and are consistent with the legislative authority granted under the Constitution.

Over 100 companies, including Hindustan Unilever, Patanjali, Jubilant Foodworks, and Phillips, had filed petitions against the anti-profiteering provisions in the High Court.

Source: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/sc-issues-notice-to-centre-others-on-anti-profiteering-provisions-124041900719_1.html

category

E-Invoicing Under GST

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:41:19 +0000

E-invoicing within the GST framework refers to the electronic authentication of invoices as outlined by GST regulations. It’s akin to how GST-registered businesses utilize e-way bills for transporting goods. Likewise, specific GST-registered entities are required to produce e-invoices for their Business-to-Business (B2B) transactions.

What is e-invoicing under GST?

E-invoicing, or electronic invoicing, refers to a system where B2B invoices and certain other documents are electronically authenticated by GSTN for further use on the common GST portal.
The GST Council decided to implement e-invoicing in its 35th meeting, initially covering specific categories of mostly large enterprises, which later expanded to include mid-sized and small businesses.

Who must generate e-invoice and its Applicability?

E-invoicing applies based on turnover criteria or e-invoice limits set by phases.
Taxpayers exceeding specified turnover limits in any financial year from 2017-18 to 2021-22 must comply with e-invoicing from FY 2022-23 onwards.
Certain notified businesses are exempt from e-invoicing, such as insurers, banking companies, and others as listed by CBIC notifications.

Transactions and documents criteria

Systems before & after e-invoicing

Time limit to generate e-Invoice

Process of getting an e-invoice

Benefits of e-Invoicing to businesses

How can e-invoicing curb tax evasion?

What are the mandatory fields of an e-invoice?

category

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

Extension of GSTR-1 Filing Deadline by GSTN

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:54:47 +0000

An advisory issued by GSTN, Advisory No. 631 dated April 11, 2024, acknowledges the challenges faced by taxpayers in intermittently filing GSTR-1 due to technical glitches on the portal. To address this issue, GSTN has recommended to CBIC the extension of the deadline for monthly taxpayers to file GSTR-1 by one day, until April 12, 2024.

The full advisory is available at: GSTN Advisory No. 631

category

GST Evasion and the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI)

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:40:03 +0000

Instances of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) investigating tax evasion are frequently encountered. Many may wonder about the role and operations of this organization. Here, we delve into key questions surrounding DGGI and its functioning.

What is DGGI?

DGGI, formerly known as the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), is primarily tasked with combating GST evasion. As the apex intelligence body under the CBIC, it collects intelligence related to GST evasion.

Role of DGGI:

DGGI’s mandate includes gathering, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence on GST, Central Excise (CE), and Service Tax (ST) evasion. It also investigates offenses involving such evasion, suggests policy changes, and collaborates with other law enforcement agencies.

Presence of DGGI:

Headquartered in New Delhi, DGGI operates through regional and zonal units across the country, comprising a relatively lean workforce of approximately 1500 personnel.

Operation of DGGI:

The intelligence-gathering process involves sophisticated data analysis, monitoring sectoral performance, scrutinizing company submissions, and collaborating with state GST enforcement bodies. Additionally, information from informers, including disgruntled employees, is integral to its operations.

Informers and Rewards:

DGGI maintains a robust reward scheme to incentivize informers, offering rewards of up to 20% of recovered amounts. Similarly, officers involved in case detection and resolution are eligible for rewards.

Assessment of Information:

Collected intelligence undergoes rigorous examination to confirm its validity and actionable nature. Subsequently, investigations may commence through summons or, if deemed necessary, through inspection, search, and seizure under relevant provisions.

Powers and Functions:

DGGI exercises powers of inspection, search, and seizure under the CGST Act, subject to legal safeguards and due process. Reasonable belief is crucial in initiating such actions, and adherence to legal procedures is paramount.

Outcome of Raids:

Following raids or search operations, individuals are summoned to provide explanations. Where evidence suggests offenses, arrests can be made, subject to legal provisions and procedures.

Show Cause Notices:

After collecting evidence, evasion charges are formalized through Show Cause Notices (SCNs), allowing parties opportunities to defend themselves and appeal.

Awareness and Compliance:

Taxpayers and companies are advised to adhere strictly to legal requirements, as evasion detection mechanisms are advanced. Compliance, engagement with authorities, and staying abreast of legal developments are recommended.

New SOP for DGGI:

A recent SOP issued by CBIC suggests a need for balanced enforcement practices, avoiding overreach. Close engagement with industry and adherence to legal interpretations are emphasized.

Source: CNBC-TV18 (https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/explained-heres-what-you-should-know-about-gst-evasion-and-dggi-19394551.html)

category

Extension of Appeal Filing Time by the Appellate Authority

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:00:41 +0000

Introduction:

The authority of the Appellate Authority to extend the period for filing an appeal was deliberated upon in the case of Jyanata Ghosh v. State of West Bengal by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Jyanata Ghosh, referred to as the Petitioner, received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) which lacked essential details regarding personal hearing.
Following the SCN, an Order was issued on August 11, 2023, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding a significant sum from the Petitioner for a specified period.
The issuance of this order violated principles of natural justice as it did not grant the Petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing.
Challenging this order, the Petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, only to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the period for filing an appeal.

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court directed that the Appellate Authority should have granted the Petitioner a personal hearing and decided the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the violation of the principle of natural justice.
The court cited precedents such as Murtaza B Kaukawala v. State of West Bengal and S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India, highlighting that delay can be condoned if the principles of natural justice are violated.
It was further noted that the prescribed period for filing an appeal, initially set at 30 days, can be extended by the Appellate Authority, as mandated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Consequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated January 17, 2024. Additionally, it ordered a stay on the recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal case, upon the Petitioner’s deposit of the pre-deposit amount, thereby disposing of the writ petition in favor of the Petitioner.

category

Merely uploading SCN under the category “Additional Notices” instead of “Notices” on the GST portal does not constitute sufficient intimation to the taxpayer

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:43:22 +0000

Introduction:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner, addressed the issue of whether the misplacement of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the “Additional Notices” category instead of “Notices” on the GST portal constitutes sufficient intimation to the taxpayer. This analysis examines the court’s findings and the implications for similar cases.

Facts of the Case:

Introduction:

Facts of the Case:

M/s. Anhad Impex ("the Petitioner") received an Impugned Order dated November 29, 2023, from the Assistant Commissioner ("the Respondent"), creating a demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
The Petitioner asserted that they never received the SCN, which formed the basis of the Impugned Order, thus depriving them of the opportunity to respond or participate in adjudication proceedings.
SCNs are typically uploaded under the "Notices" section on the GST portal, but in this instance, it was placed in the less accessible "Additional Notices" category, leading the Petitioner to miss it.
The Respondent contended that uploading the notice on the GST portal suffices as per Section 169 of the CGST Act.

Issue:

Whether the misplacement of the SCN in “Additional Notices” rather than “Notices” warrants the invalidation of the demand order?

Held:

The court noted that the Petitioner's lack of response to the SCN indicated a lack of proper and timely intimation.
Placing the SCN under "Additional Notices" instead of "Notices" made it less accessible, infringing upon principles of natural justice and provisions of the CGST Act.
Referring to precedents such as East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner and Murugesan Jayalakshmi v. State Tax Officer, the court emphasized the importance of proper categorization on the portal.
Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, with directions for the Petitioner to respond to the SCN, and the Respondent to re-adjudicate the matter with a personal hearing within four weeks.

category

CBDT Issues Interim Action Plan for F.Y. 2024-25: Emphasizes Adherence

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 04:36:03 +0000

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has released a Circular dated April 05, 2024, denoted as F.No. 380/01/2024, intended for internal departmental utilization. This circular delineates the Interim Action Plan tailored for the Financial Year 2024-25. It is imperative to disseminate this document among all officers within your jurisdiction for requisite action and to ensure unwavering compliance within the specified timeframes for each critical area of focus.

The comprehensive Interim Action Plan for the Financial Year 2024-25 is available for reference and download at the following link: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CBDT_Releases_Interim_Action_Plan_for_F.Y._2024-25__for_departmental_use-_Urges_Strict_Compliance.pdf

category

GST Applicability to Compensation for Liquidated Damages in Agreements

editor — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:27:09 +0000

In a recent ruling by the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in AAR No. 12/AP/GST/2023 dated December 21, 2023, significant clarity was provided regarding the GST implications of compensation collected for liquidated damages under contractual agreements. This ruling pertains to the case of South India Krishna Oil & Fats (P.) Ltd. (“the Applicant”), a manufacturer of edible oils, and sheds light on whether such compensation amounts are subject to GST and the related input tax credit implications.

Facts of the Case:

The Applicant, engaged in the production of edible oils, enters into agreements with customers for the supply of specified quantities of edible oils at agreed-upon rates, with delivery within specified timelines.
Instances arise where customers fail to lift the agreed quantities of edible oils within stipulated delivery dates, leading to breach or non-performance of contractual obligations.
In response to such breaches, the Applicant collects compensation amounts, termed "Liquidated Damages or Trade Settlement," from defaulting customers.

Held:

The AAR observed that as per the definition of "consideration" under Section 2(31) of the CGST/APGST Acts, it encompasses any payment made in response to or for the inducement of the supply of goods or services.
It was opined that the compensation amounts paid by customers to the Applicant for non-performance or breach of contract constitute consideration for tolerating an act or situation under an agreement.
Consequently, such compensation amounts were deemed to constitute a supply of service and were subject to CGST at 9% and SGST at 9% each under Chapter Heading No. 9997 at Serial No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017.
Additionally, it was held that since GST is leviable on the collection of compensation for liquidated damages, the restriction of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of common services under Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST/APGST Rules does not apply.

category

CBDT notifies changes in ITR Form V and Acknowledgement for AY 2024-25

editor — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:28:31 +0000

The CBDT, through Notification No. 37/2024 dated March 27, 2024, has introduced revisions to the ITR form V and Acknowledgement for Assessment Year 2024-25. These changes align with amendments made in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, following the Finance Act, 2023.

For further details, the full notification can be viewed at: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CBDT_37-2024-27.3.2024.pdf

category