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 |

Blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST: Key Points You Need to Know

editor — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 05:48:46 +0000

In the realm of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India, understanding Input Tax Credit (ITC) is crucial for businesses to ensure compliance and optimize their tax liabilities. However, not all GST paid on purchases can be claimed as ITC. There are certain scenarios where the Input Tax Credit is blocked, preventing businesses from claiming it against their output tax liability. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the concept of Blocked Input Tax Credit under GST, highlighting key points and recent rulings.

What is Blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC)?

Blocked Input Tax Credit, as per GST laws, refers to specific goods and services on which GST is paid but businesses are ineligible to claim them as Input Tax Credit. These items are deemed ineligible because they are not considered as inputs directly utilized in the production or provision of taxable goods or services.

Recent Rulings and Clarifications:

Introduction:

In the complex landscape of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India, the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) plays a significant role for businesses. The recent ruling by the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling regarding Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society sheds light on crucial aspects of ITC denial. Let’s delve into the details to understand the implications of this ruling.

Facts of the Case:

Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society sought to avail Input Tax Credit for lift installation charges paid to the lift contractor. However, the Maharashtra Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the Maharastra Advance Ruling Authority, denying the society’s eligibility for ITC. Citing sections 16(2)(b), 17(5)(c), and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, the authority emphasized that ITC would only be available for tax paid on works contract services when such services are utilized as input for further supply of works contract service.

Issue:

The central issue revolves around the eligibility criteria for Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act. The appellant, Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society, failed to fulfill the conditions outlined for availing ITC on works contract services. The authority highlighted that the society, not being a works contract service provider, did not provide any works contract service to its members, thereby rendering it ineligible for ITC.

Held:

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling affirmed the decision of the Maharastra Advance Ruling Authority, ruling that Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society is not eligible to avail Input Tax Credit in respect of the GST paid on lift installation charges. The authority emphasized that the appellant did not meet the criteria outlined in sections 16(2)(b), 17(5)(c), and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was deemed not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

Introduction

The case of Malabar Cements Limited, brought before the Authority for Advance Ruling in Kerala, sheds light on the complexities surrounding input tax credit under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime in India. This case revolves around the eligibility of Malabar Cements Limited to claim input tax credit on the GST charged by a service provider for hiring buses or motor vehicles with a seating capacity of more than 13 persons for employee transportation. Understanding the outcome of this case is crucial for businesses navigating the nuances of GST regulations.

Facts of the Case

Malabar Cements Limited, a government-owned Public Sector Company in Kerala, sought an advance ruling regarding the admissibility of input tax credit on GST charged by a service provider for providing transportation facilities to its employees. The company operates its factory round-the-clock in remote areas where public transportation is limited. To ensure the commuting needs of its employees are met, Malabar Cements Limited engages a service provider to provide non-air-conditioned buses with a seating capacity exceeding 13 persons. The service provider levies a GST of 5% on the hiring charges, leading to the question of whether Malabar Cements Limited can avail input tax credit on this GST.

Issue

The central issue in this case is twofold. Firstly, it concerns the eligibility of Malabar Cements Limited to claim input tax credit on the GST charged by the service provider for hiring buses or motor vehicles with a seating capacity exceeding 13 persons for employee transportation. Secondly, it delves into the extent to which the input tax credit can be availed by Malabar Cements Limited, particularly considering the portion of the transportation cost borne by the company itself.

Held

Upon thorough examination of the relevant legal provisions and the arguments presented by Malabar Cements Limited, the Authority for Advance Ruling concluded that the company is indeed eligible to avail input tax credit on the GST charged by the service provider. However, the extent of this credit is restricted to the cost of transportation borne by Malabar Cements Limited. This ruling provides clarity on an important aspect of GST compliance for businesses engaged in employee transportation services and underscores the need for meticulous adherence to statutory provisions.

Introduction

The recent ruling by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Madhya Pradesh has significant implications for businesses in the amusement park industry, particularly regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The case of Atriwal Amusement Park sheds light on the eligibility criteria for claiming ITC on various components and services utilized in the construction of water parks, offering crucial guidance to businesses operating in this sector

Facts of the Case

Atriwal Amusement Park, a company specializing in the construction of water parks, sought clarification from the AAR regarding the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on several aspects of its construction activities. The key components and services under scrutiny included the purchase of water slides, site development services, and the construction of swimming pools or wave pools, all of which are subject to taxation under GST regulations.

Issue

The central issue in this case pertains to the eligibility of Atriwal Amusement Park to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on specific components and services utilized in the construction of water parks. The inquiry seeks clarification on whether these elements qualify as ‘Plant and Equipment’ under GST provisions, thus enabling the applicant to avail of ITC benefits.

Held

Upon careful consideration of the facts and legal provisions, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Madhya Pradesh arrived at the following decisions:

Water Slides: The AAR ruled in favor of Atriwal Amusement Park, affirming its eligibility to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of water slides made from durable PVC material. This decision is based on the classification of water slides as ‘apparatus, equipment, and machinery,’ thereby meeting the criteria for ITC under GST regulations.

Site Development Services: However, the AAR denied ITC claims on goods and services related to site development and preparation where water slides are installed. The rationale behind this decision lies in the exclusion of land-related services from the definition of ‘Plant and Equipment’ eligible for ITC benefits.

Swimming Pools or Wave Pools: Similarly, the AAR ruled against the eligibility of ITC on the construction of swimming pools or wave pools. Despite being integral components of amusement parks, these structures were deemed civil in nature and not considered part of the supportive framework or foundation of the plant, thus falling outside the scope of ‘Plant and Equipment’ for ITC purposes.

Introduction

The integration of solar power systems has become increasingly common as businesses seek to adopt sustainable and eco-friendly energy solutions. This article examines a specific case, the ruling in the matter of Unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. GST AAR Gujarat, to explore the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the installation and commissioning of a roof-top solar system.

Facts of the Case

Unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd., a welding wires manufacturing and sales company based in Anand, Gujarat, installed a roof-top solar system with a capacity of 440 KW on its factory roof for captive power generation. The company sought clarification on its eligibility for ITC under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Issue

The main issues raised in the case were whether Unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd. is eligible for ITC on the purchased roof-top solar system with installation & commissioning and whether the roof-top solar system, along with its installation and commissioning, constitutes plant and machinery, making it eligible for ITC under section 17(5) of the CGST Act.

Held

The ruling authority concluded that unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd. is eligible to avail ITC on the roof-top solar system with installation & commissioning under the CGST/GGST Act and the roof-top solar system, with installation and commissioning, qualifies as plant and machinery for the company, making it eligible for ITC under section 17(5) of the CGST/GGST Act.

Introduction

The West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling recently tackled the question of Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility concerning the construction of immovable property subsequently leased out for commercial purposes. This article provides an overview of the ruling, its implications, and the legal context surrounding it.

Facts of the Case

M/s. Mindrill Systems and Solutions Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent,” constructed a warehouse and leased it to a commercial entity. GST was duly paid on this supply of service. Subsequently, the Respondent sought an Advance Ruling from the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) regarding the availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for capital expenses incurred during the warehouse’s construction. The question pertained to whether these expenses could offset tax liabilities arising from renting out the warehouse.

Issue

The central issue at hand revolved around whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) could be claimed in relation to the construction of immovable property subsequently let out for commercial purposes.

Held

The West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, in Appeal No. 04/WBAAAR/Appeal/2023, deliberated on the matter. It observed that clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), dictate that ITC is not available for works contract services or goods or services received for the construction of immovable property. Therefore, such transactions fall within the purview of blocked credit.

Furthermore, the Authority noted that the explanation provided in clause (d) of Section 17 specifies that credit is also blocked for reconstruction, renovation, additions, alterations, or repairs capitalized in the books of accounts. However, it clarified that the condition of capitalization in the books of accounts applies solely to the mentioned activities related to immovable property.

In conclusion, the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) is available concerning the construction of the warehouse subsequently leased out by the Applicant.

Introduction

The recent ruling by the GST AAAR Tamilnadu has shed light on a crucial aspect of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning structural support for overhead cranes within an ‘Integrated Factory’ building. Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited brought forth an appeal challenging the existing orders of the Advance Ruling Authority, Tamil Nadu, seeking clarification on the applicability of ITC in this scenario.

Facts of the Case

Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited constructed a warehouse and let it out for commercial purposes, paying GST on the service provided. The company filed an application for Advance Ruling, questioning whether ITC could be availed for the capital expenses incurred on the construction of the warehouse. The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling held that ITC was not admissible for expenses capitalized in the books of account. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the Revenue Department appealed against it.

Issue

The primary issue revolved around the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning structural support erected for overhead cranes within an ‘Integrated Factory’ building. Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited sought clarification on whether the Integrated Factory Building itself could be considered as plant and machinery under the CGST Act.

Held

The GST AAAR Tamilnadu held that while the overhead crane and its structural support qualified as plant and machinery, the Integrated Factory Building itself did not. Consequently, Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited was only eligible for an ITC proportional to the structural support for the overhead crane, but not for the construction of other civil structures like the building’s side walls and roof.

Introduction

In the case of Raminfo Limited, the GST AAR Telangana has made a significant determination regarding the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of a 7-seater vehicle, which will be converted into an ambulance for onward supply. This article explores the details of the ruling, its implications, and the broader context of GST regulations.

Facts of the Case

Raminfo Limited has secured a work order from the Government of Tripura to supply ambulances, specifically Mobile Common Service Centres. To fulfill this order, they are procuring Maruti Suzuki Eeco (7 seater) vehicles and modifying them in their workshop located in Hyderabad, Telangana State. Seeking clarity on GST rates and ITC admissibility, Raminfo Limited filed an advance ruling before the AAR Telangana.

Issue

The primary issue at hand is whether Raminfo Limited is eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of Maruti Suzuki Eeco (7 seater) vehicles, which will be transformed into ambulances for onward supply to the Government of Tripura.

Held

The AAR Telangana, in its order TSAAR Order No.02/2023, concluded that Raminfo Limited is indeed eligible to avail ITC on the purchase of vehicles used for further supply. Citing Section 17(5)(a) of the CGST Act, the AAR noted that ITC on such purchases is not blocked. Therefore, Raminfo Limited can claim ITC on the tax paid for the purchased vehicles. Additionally, the AAR clarified that GST at the rate of 28% will be applicable on the supply of ambulances to the Government of Tripura.

Understanding Blocked Input Tax Credit under GST is paramount for businesses to avoid unnecessary tax liabilities and ensure compliance. By staying updated with recent rulings and clarifications, businesses can make informed decisions regarding their tax planning strategies. It’s imperative to consult with tax experts to navigate the complexities of GST laws effectively.

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

Reinstatement of GST Numbers Contingent on Clearing Dues Highlights Tax Adherence and Procedural Flexibility

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 12:22:39 +0000

Introduction:

This case law concerns a judgment from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which offers a lifeline for GST compliance by restoring GST registration upon the settlement of dues.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner’s GST registration was canceled following their failure to respond to a show cause notice issued by tax authorities on November 16, 2021. Subsequently, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed due to their absence before the Appellate Authority.

Issue:

The main issue was whether the petitioner’s GST registration, canceled due to non-compliance with the show cause notice and absence during the appeal, could be reinstated upon their commitment to clear outstanding taxes, penalties, and interest as per GST laws.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner advocated for the restoration of their GST number, pledging to settle all dues, including taxes, penalties, and interest, in accordance with the GST Act, 2017, upon reinstatement.

Respondent’s Argument:

The Respondent, represented by the Advocate General, did not oppose the petitioner’s proposal to settle dues and reinstate the GST number.

Held:

Considering the unique circumstances and lack of objection from the Respondent, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh disposed of the case by instructing the petitioner to approach the concerned Officer for GST number restoration within seven days. Upon restoration, the petitioner must settle taxes, penalties, and interest within another seven days, as mandated by the GST Act, 2017.

category

Entitlement to Interest Commences After Sixty Days from Refund Application Until Credited to Bank Account

editor — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 05:35:52 +0000

In a significant ruling by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Raghav Ventures vs. Commissioner of Delhi [W.P.(C) NO. 12209 OF 2023 dated March 01, 2024], the issue of entitlement to interest on delayed GST refunds was examined. The case sheds light on the statutory provisions and clarifications regarding the payment of interest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (“the CGST Act”).

Facts of the Case:

M/s Raghav Ventures ("the Petitioner") engaged in exporting mobile phones and accessories to M/s AZ Logistic, Dubai, UAE, thereby paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax ("IGST").
During the Impugned Period (December 2022, February 2023, March 2023, and May 2023), the Petitioner paid IGST totaling significant amounts i.e. Rs. 1,63,16,851/-, Rs. 50,46,889/-, Rs. 17,26,288/-, and Rs. 13,85,382/-, respectively.
The Petitioner filed refund applications for the IGST paid during the Impugned Periods in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the CGST rules.
Despite receiving acknowledgments for the refund applications, the refunds were not processed within the stipulated time frame.
The IGST refunds were eventually sanctioned and credited into the Petitioner's bank account but without any accompanying interest.
The Petitioner subsequently filed an application to the Revenue Department seeking interest on the delayed refunds.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed refund of IGST as per statutory provisions?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the Writ Petition (C) NO. 12209 OF 2023, held the following:

Interest becomes payable under Section 56 of the CGST Act if the refund ordered under Section 54(5) is not processed within 60 days from the date of the refund application.
The payment of interest under Section 56 is a statutory provision and does not rely on any claim made by the assessee.
Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated November 18, 2019, clarifies that interest accrues from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the refund application until the amount is credited to the applicant's bank account.
Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to statutory interest at the rate of 6% from the date following the expiry of sixty days from the date of the refund application until the refund is credited to the bank account.
The Court directed the Revenue Department to process the refund of interest and credit the same into the Petitioner's account within four weeks.

category

GST Implications on Lump Sum Transfer Charges for Leasehold Rights

editor — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 04:51:43 +0000

In a recent ruling by the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), Remarkable Industries (P.) Ltd. sought clarification regarding the GST implications on lump sum upfront premium paid as transfer charges for leasehold rights. The case, identified as Advance Ruling No. UP/ADRG/41/2023, offers significant insights into the classification and applicable GST rate concerning the transfer of leasehold rights.

Facts of the Case:

Remarkable Industries (P.) Ltd. ("the Applicant") operates in the manufacturing and selling of various products.
The Applicant acquired an industrial plot from the Noida Authority under a lease deed for a 99-year period.
The lease involved the payment of a lump sum upfront premium and subsequent annual lease charges.
After utilizing the plot for manufacturing purposes, the Applicant decided to transfer its leasehold rights to M/s S K Industries ("the Assignee") for consideration.
The transfer process required permission from the Noida Authority, payment of transfer charges by the buyer, and the execution of a fresh lease deed with the Assignee.
Notably, the transfer did not entail sub-leasing or creation of fresh benefits from the land; it solely involved the transfer of existing leasehold rights for consideration.

Issue:

Whether the activity of transferring leasehold rights by the Applicant constitutes sub-leasing and, if not, what is the appropriate classification and applicable GST rate for the said activity?

Held:

The Uttar Pradesh, AAR in Advance Ruling No. UP/ADRG/41/2023 held as follows:

The activity of the Applicant is akin to agreeing to transfer one's leasehold rights and does not amount to sub-leasing.
The transfer represents compensation for agreeing to transfer the leasehold rights to the Assignee without creating additional benefits from the land.
As per the CGST Act and Schedule II, the transaction is classified as a service rather than a transfer of immovable property.
The Applicant's right under the lease deed is extinguished after assignment, and there is no creation of fresh benefits from the land.
The transaction falls under "Other miscellaneous service" (SAC 999792) and is taxable at an 18% GST rate as per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017.

category

Employees get ₹3,731 crore GST penalty demand; Bombay HC strikes it down

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:43:47 +0000

Should an employee of a company be held responsible for forking out penalties related to tax demands raised on the company by revenue authorities? Goods and Services Tax (GST) enforcement officials believed so when they slapped a demand last September for a ₹3,731 crore penalty on a taxation manager and other employees of global logistics major Maersk for alleged tax evasion of the same amount by the company.

In a judgment that could bring relief to other employees at firms in the midst of GST disputes, the Bombay High Court last week struck down the demand and show cause notices issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence in the case, terming them bad and illegal.

Terming it “highly unconscionable and disproportionate” for revenue officers to hold employees responsible for liabilities of the company, a division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla held it would not be incorrect to contend that the purpose of issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner who is merely an employee, was designed to threaten and pressurize them.

GST officials had alleged that a sum of ₹1561 crore was wrongly utilized as Input Tax Credit by Maersk and those credits were wrongfully distributed. While Maersk is a foreign company which does not have any employee or fixed establishment in India, solely for the purpose of representing and acting on its behalf before the Indian tax authorities, the firm had given the power of attorney to some employees of its steamer agent in India, incorporated as Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd.

“This ruling is significant for employees of large-sized businesses, where potentially interpretative GST positions are adopted by employees without any malafide intention. Such imposition of substantial penalties in recent investigations had caused lot of unrest amongst such employees,” an expert said.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/business/employee-gets-3731-crore-gst-penalty-demand-bombay-hc-strikes-it-down/article68025394.ece

category

Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST

editor — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:09:45 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024], granted relief to the petitioner by allowing the writ petition. The court instructed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest. The judgment emphasized that the Revenue Department lacks authority to seize cash under the applicable GST laws.

Facts of the case:

Search and seizure procedures were conducted at the premises of Jagdish Bansal, resulting in the confiscation of cash by the Revenue Department.

Displeased by this action, Jagdish Bansal filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the lawfulness of the cash seizure.

Issue:

The central issue at hand was whether the Revenue Department possessed the legal authority to seize cash under the GST framework.

Held:

In its ruling on W.P. (C) NO. 16677 OF 2023, the Delhi High Court made the following determinations:

Referencing the decision of the Delhi High Court in K.M Food Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor Vs Director General DGGI Headquarters [W.P. (C) 328/2024 dated February 13, 2024], the court construed Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
It observed that cash does not fall under the definition of goods but rather under the definition of money as outlined in Section 2(75) of the CGST Act.
The court reiterated that cash cannot be categorized as goods and therefore cannot be subject to seizure.
It concluded that there was no valid reason for the Revenue Department to retain the seized cash.
Consequently, the court deemed the impugned order as null and directed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest.

category

A Closer Look at the Significant Tax Adjustments Coming into Force on April 1, 2024

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:04:10 +0000

April 1 signifies the start of a fresh fiscal year and holds great importance for personal finances, as many income tax adjustments from the Budget come into effect on this date. Additionally, various other alterations are also implemented, potentially influencing individual financial situations. These modifications were unveiled by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman during her Budget speech this year. Let’s delve into some significant changes you need to know, such as the widened basic exemption thresholds, among others.

New Tax Regime Default Adoption

The default choice of the new tax regime is a significant alteration aimed at simplifying tax filing and encouraging more people to opt for the new regime.
The new regime offers reduced tax rates but fewer deductions and exemptions.
Taxpayers still have the option to continue with the old tax regime if it suits them better.

Elevated Basic Exemption Limit and Rebate

Effective from April 1, 2023, the basic exemption limit was raised to ₹ 3 lakh from ₹ 2.5 lakh under the new tax regime.
The rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was increased to ₹ 7 lakh from ₹ 5 lakh.
Individuals with a taxable income up to ₹ 7 lakh under the new regime will receive a full tax rebate, exempting them from paying any income tax.

New Tax Slabs

Income between ₹ 3 lakh and ₹ 6 lakh will be taxed at 5%.
Income between ₹ 6 lakh and ₹ 9 lakh will be taxed at 10%.
Income between ₹ 9 lakh and ₹ 12 lakh will be taxed at 15%.
Income between ₹ 12 lakh and ₹ 15 lakh will attract a 20% tax.
Income above ₹ 15 lakh will be taxed at 30%.

Restoration of Basic Deduction

Reduced Surcharge

Life Insurance Taxation

Exemption of Enhanced Leave Encashment

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/new-tax-rules-to-come-into-effect-from-april-1-all-you-need-to-know-5283150

category

Assessee is entitled to interest from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of the GST refund application

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:28:11 +0000

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Raghav Ventures vs. Commissioner of Delhi [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12209 of 2023 dated March 01, 2024], held that the payment of 6% interest under the Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) is statutory and does not depend if the claim made by the Assessee. It is automatically payable if the GST refund is not made within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application.

Facts of the case:

Raghav Ventures, referred to as “the Petitioner,” engaged in exporting mobile phones and accessories to M/s AZ Logistic, Dubai, UAE, and paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The normal procedure for claiming GST refunds involved submitting shipping bills, which Customs processed through ICEGATE.

In December 2022, exports amounted to Rs. 9,06,49,174/- with IGST payment of Rs. 1,63,16,851/-. In February 2023, exports totaled Rs. 2,80,38,271/- with IGST payment of Rs. 50,46,889/-. Similarly, in March 2023, exports amounted to Rs. 95,90,489/- with IGST payment of Rs. 17,26,288/-, and in May 2023, exports of mobiles and accessories worth Rs. 76,96,568/- were made, with IGST payment of Rs. 13,85,382/-.

According to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”), export invoice details from Form GSTR-1 are electronically transmitted to Customs. Once the system confirms export, GST refunds are processed through ICEGATE under Rule 96(3) of the CGST Rules.

The Petitioner submitted GST returns in Form-GSTR-3B and refund applications for the mentioned periods via Form-GST-RFD-01. Acknowledgments were received via Form-GST-RFD-02, confirming receipt of the GST refund applications.

While the writ petition was pending, the IGST refund for the period was credited to the Petitioner’s bank account on December 4, 2023, without any interest. On December 6, 2023, the Petitioner applied to the Special Commissioner, Department of Trade & Taxes (“the Respondent”), seeking 6% interest from the refund application date until December 3, 2023.

Therefore, aggrieved by these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed, requesting the Respondent to grant the total IGST refund of Rs. 2,44,75,410/- for the tax periods of December 2022, February 2023, March 2023, and May 2023, along with interest as per Section 56 of the CGST Act.

Issue:

Does the Assessee have a statutory entitlement to interest on delayed GST refunds?

Held:

The Delhi High Court, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12209 of 2023, ruled as follows:

It was observed that interest payment under Section 56 of the CGST Act is mandatory and not contingent upon the Assessee's claim. It automatically becomes due if the GST refund is not issued within 60 days from the date of application receipt. Denial of GST refund based on waiving interest claims in FORM GST-RFD-01 is unjustifiable. Additionally, interest is only applicable if the refund isn't granted within 60 days from the application date, making interest payment obligatory and automatic.
It was also noted that Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated November 18, 2019, clarifies that interest calculation starts from the day immediately following the 60-day period from the application receipt until the amount is credited to the applicant's bank account.
The court held that the Petitioner is entitled to statutory interest at a rate of 6%, starting from the day immediately following the expiry of the 60-day period from the application receipt until the refund is credited to the Petitioner's bank account. The Respondent was instructed to process the refund of interest and credit it to the Petitioner's account within four weeks. Consequently, the petition was resolved along with the pending application.

category

ITC Transition not to be denied in case of Input Service Distributor (ISD)

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:22:00 +0000

In the case of Siemens India Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 986 of 2019 dated February 09, 2024], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, drawing upon sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), postponed the proceedings for further examination. The court upheld the temporary halt granted to the Assessee, who is an Input Service Distributor (“ISD”), emphasizing that Input Tax Credit (ITC) legitimately available to the Assessee before the Appointed Day should not be forfeited due to the absence of an effective procedural mechanism for transferring ITC to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilization. This situation could lead to the permanent loss of such ITC.

Facts of the case:

Siemens India Ltd. (“the Petitioner”), registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), initiated a writ petition regarding the transition of Input Tax Credit (ITC) available to them on July 1, 2017 (“the Appointed Day”). The petition contested the Revenue Department’s (“the Respondent”) refusal to allow transition or utilization of ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger, citing a defective electronic mechanism.

These proceedings stemmed from a Supreme Court order dated March 24, 2023, in Union of India and Ors. v. Siemens Ltd. and Ors [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7213 of 2023], directing a fresh consideration of the case, taking into account relevant contentions and legal provisions.

Issue:

Is an Input Service Distributor (ISD) entitled to transition ITC available on the Appointed Day?

Held:

The Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition 986 of 2019, made the following determinations:

The primary concern revolves around the legal ramifications of sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, outlining transitional arrangements for the carry-forward and utilization of ITC by ISDs.
Citing sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, the Court emphasized that legitimately available ITC with the Petitioner before the Appointed Day cannot be forfeited due to the absence of an effective procedural mechanism for transferring ITC to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilization, thus preventing permanent loss of such ITC.
The Court suggested that a thorough examination of these issues by the GST Council would aid in the adjudication process.
It was decided that interim relief granted to the Petitioner would remain in force.
The case was adjourned until August 9, 2024.

category