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 |

Claim of Credit: Fulfillment of ITC Conditions Over GSTR-2B Auto-Population

editor — Wed, 29 May 2024 05:24:03 +0000

Introduction

Navigating the intricate web of Goods and Services Tax (GST) regulations requires not just understanding the law but also its practical applications. One such critical aspect revolves around the claiming of Input Tax Credit (ITC), particularly in scenarios where discrepancies arise between invoice dates and the period of eligibility for ITC. A recent ruling by the Telangana Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) sheds light on the precedence of conditions fulfillment over the automatic population of data in GSTR-2B.

Facts of the Case

Background of Noori Travels: M/s. Noori Travels, engaged in passenger transportation services, historically discharged GST at 5% as per Notification 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate).
Change in GST Rate: From August 1, 2023, Noori Travels opted to charge GST at 12%, thereby becoming eligible to claim ITC on goods and services used for their services.
Purchase of Motor Vehicle: Noori Travels purchased a motor vehicle on August 04, 2023. However, the dealer included this transaction in their GSTR-1 for July 2023.

Issue

The crux of the matter lies in determining whether Noori Travels can rightfully claim ITC on the motor vehicle despite its invoice date predating their eligibility period for claiming ITC.

Held

The Telangana AAR, in TSAAR ORDER NO.08/2024, provided the following ruling:

Option for GST Payment: Under SAC heading 9964, businesses like Noori Travels have the flexibility to choose between 5% or 12% GST rates. Opting for 5% implies forgoing ITC eligibility.
Weightage of GSTR-1: The AAR emphasized the statutory nature of GSTR-1, given its filing on the common portal, asserting its superiority over physical invoices.
Temporal Aspect: Since the motor vehicle transaction was reported in the GSTR-1 of July 2023, during a period when Noori Travels hadn't yet transitioned to the 12% GST rate, ITC pertaining to the purchase was deemed ineligible.

Conclusion

The ruling underscores the primacy of fulfilling ITC conditions over mere auto-population of data in GSTR-2B. It highlights the significance of aligning transactional timelines with regulatory requirements to safeguard ITC claims.

category

Penalty u/s 129: Understanding GST Penalties for Expired e-Way Bills

editor — Sat, 27 Apr 2024 05:23:59 +0000

Introduction: Navigating GST Penalties

Navigating the complexities of Goods and Services Tax (GST) penalties, particularly those under section 129, requires a nuanced understanding of the legal landscape and the implications for businesses. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the intricacies of penalties imposed under section 129 of the GST Act, examining recent judicial precedents and shedding light on crucial considerations.

Introduction

In the labyrinth of taxation laws, even the minutest details can spark significant legal battles. One such instance emerged in a recent case where a company engaged in paper trading faced the repercussions of an expired e-way bill. This article delves into the facts, issues, and the consequential ruling that ensued from this legal tussle.

Facts of the case

The petitioner, a company dealing in various paper products, initiated an intra-state supply transaction. However, the smooth flow of goods encountered a snag when the designated route was obstructed by a political rally. As a result, the goods couldn’t reach their destination within the stipulated time.

Issue

The crux of the matter lies in the legality of detaining the goods due to the expiration of the e-way bill. Was the detention justified, or did it infringe upon the petitioner’s rights?

Held

The High Court of Telangana weighed the evidence and delivered a verdict. Firstly, it dismissed any presumption of tax evasion due to the e-way bill’s expiry. Furthermore, it censured the respondent’s disregard for the petitioner’s representations, labeling it as a deliberate oversight.

The court’s scrutiny revealed the lack of substantial grounds to implicate the petitioner in tax evasion solely based on the expired e-way bill. Consequently, it directed the refund of the amount collected, underscoring the officer’s obligation to exercise discretion judiciously.

Introduction

In a recent legal saga, the Allahabad High Court delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of M/s. Globe Panel Industries India Pvt Ltd versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. This ruling not only provided significant relief to the petitioner but also set a crucial precedent regarding the consequences of an expired GST E-Way Bill in the realm of goods transportation. Let’s delve deeper into the intricacies of this case and its implications.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Globe Panel Industries India Pvt Ltd, found itself entangled in legal complexities due to the expiration of one of its e-way bills, despite possessing valid e-invoices and accurate goods descriptions. Despite diligently providing evidence of vehicle breakdown and subsequent repairs, including a mechanic’s letter and ‘fast tag’ movement tracking, the authorities proceeded to levy a penalty.

Issue

The crux of the matter revolves around whether the expiration of an E-Way Bill, in the absence of any intention to evade tax, justifies the imposition of a penalty.

Held

The Allahabad High Court, referencing pertinent precedents and earlier decisions, emphasized the necessity of establishing mens rea, or an intent to evade tax, for penalty imposition under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It deemed the authorities’ focus on the expired E-Way Bill, without evidence of tax evasion or misuse, to be unjust. Consequently, the court nullified the penalty orders and mandated a tax refund, reiterating that technical violations should not lead to disciplinary actions in the absence of intent to evade tax.

Introduction

In a significant legal development, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Maxxcab Wires & Cables Pvt Ltd & Anr vs State Tax Officer [W.P.A. 24558 of 2022 dated November 24, 2022], has pronounced that non-speaking orders under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime are not valid. This ruling carries profound implications for the adjudication process under GST laws, emphasizing the importance of reasoned and articulate orders.

Facts of the Case

Maxxcab Wires & Cables Pvt Ltd & Anr, the petitioner, contested a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated October 27, 2022, and an ensuing order dated November 4, 2022, issued under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act). The petitioner argued that the order was non-speaking and that the SCN was issued without proper application of mind, as it was issued after the petitioner’s deadline to appear before the adjudicating authority had already passed.

Issue

The central issue at hand is whether the order in question constitutes a non-speaking order and whether it holds validity under the GST framework.

Held

The non-speaking order dated November 4, 2022, was deemed invalid and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority with directions to issue a fresh, speaking order after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted the liberty to submit fresh representations against the SCN dated October 27, 2022.

Introduction

Navigating the complexities of tax regulations can often lead to legal disputes, especially concerning the validity of documents like E-Way Bills. In a recent case, the Honorable High Court delivered a significant judgment regarding the seizure of goods due to the expiry of an E-Way Bill. Let’s delve into the details to understand the implications of this ruling.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner transported goods with a proper invoice and E-Way Bill. Upon reaching the destination and parking the vehicle, the goods were seized by the proper officer early the next morning, citing the expiry of the E-Way Bill. Despite the petitioner’s appeal, the decision to levy tax and penalty stood. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order.

Issue

The central issue revolves around whether the seizure of goods due to the expiry of the E-Way Bill was lawful and justified.

High Court’s Ruling

The Honorable High Court carefully examined the petitioner’s detailed reply, which included proofs such as toll plaza slips indicating that the vehicle had reached its destination before the E-Way Bill’s expiry. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that as long as the vehicle and goods reached the destination before the E-Way Bill’s expiry, any penalty imposed by the department is illegal and arbitrary. In this case, the court found that the authorities had disregarded the evidence provided by the petitioner, rendering the impugned order invalid. The department was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present documents and objections and proceed with the proceedings accordingly.

Conclusion: A Call for Fairness and Diligence

In conclusion, penalties under section 129 of the GST Act necessitate a balanced approach, considering both legal provisions and practical circumstances. Recent judicial pronouncements underscore the importance of procedural fairness and evidence-based decision-making in penalty imposition. Businesses must remain vigilant and ensure compliance with e-Way Bill regulations to avoid unnecessary penalties.

category

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

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 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

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

Delhi High Court Invalidates Demand Order Due to Lack of Recorded Personal Hearing

editor — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 06:05:12 +0000

The Delhi High Court recently ruled on a GST case involving Electra Power Transmission Systems and the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax.

Facts of the Case

Held

The main issue was whether the demand was justified given the petitioner's claim of appearance and attempted compliance, marred by administrative errors.
The petitioner argued that they did attend the hearing and submitted a reply, but due to an office error, crucial documents weren't uploaded. They sought another chance to present their case fully, with all necessary documentation.
The respondent maintained that the petitioner's response was unsatisfactory and noted their absence at the hearing, justifying the demand based on procedural defaults.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case for re-adjudication. The court instructed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents and be given another hearing. No comment was made on the merits of the arguments, preserving all rights.

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