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 |

The Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the Case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union Territory of J&K: An Analysis

editor — Mon, 27 May 2024 05:43:31 +0000

Introduction

The recent decision by the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union Territory of J&K [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3949 of 2019 dated April 29, 2024] has attracted significant attention. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) as infructuous. This article delves into the intricacies of this case, examining the facts, the legal issues involved, and the court’s reasoning behind its decision.

Facts of the Case

Background of the Petitioner

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., a prominent insurance company, filed a writ of mandamus, a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, court, corporation, or public authority to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do.

Assessment Order in Dispute

The dispute arose from an Assessment Order dated March 31, 2018, for the financial year 2013-14. The Petitioner challenged this order and sought a directive for the Respondent to hear their appeal against it.

Vacancy of the Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-I) Srinagar

At the time of filing the petition, the post of Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-I) Srinagar, was vacant, which complicated the Petitioner’s appeal process.

Subsequent Appointments to the Position

Over time, the Position saw several appointments:

Dr. Zahoor Ahmad Raina was appointed on November 2, 2020, by Government Order No. 1027-JK (GAD) of 2020.
He was transferred on July 24, 2021, by Government Order No. 651-JK (GAD) of 2021, and Ms. Sammer Naik, JKAS, took over as Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-II) Srinagar, with additional charge of the Position.
Eventually, on February 6, 2022, Ms. Tabasum Shafat Kamli, JKAS, was appointed to the Position via Government Order No. 130 (JK) GAD of 2022.

Issue

Core Legal Question

The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner should still be considered given the eventual filling of the Position and the time elapsed.

Held

Court’s Decision

The Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, stating that since the Position had been filled, the appeal must be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-I) Srinagar.

Reasoning Behind the Decision

The court highlighted that the administrative changes and subsequent filling of the Position rendered the appeal process viable under the Appellate Authority. Thus, there was no need for judicial intervention at this point.

Implications of the Judgment

This decision underscores the importance of administrative efficiency and the timely filling of key positions within the tax administration framework. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that administrative remedies are exhausted before judicial remedies are sought.

Conclusion

The case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union Territory of J&K serves as a crucial reminder of the procedural intricacies involved in tax disputes and the importance of administrative positions being filled promptly. The dismissal of the appeal as infructuous was a logical step, given the circumstances, and it ensures that the matter is addressed by the appropriate administrative authority.

category

Gifted Shares May Escape Capital Gains Tax if HC Ruling Sets Precedent

editor — Fri, 10 May 2024 05:22:37 +0000

Introduction

The recent Bombay High Court ruling regarding the taxation of gifted shares has sparked discussions and potential implications for investors and tax authorities alike.

Understanding the Ruling

Consideration-less Transactions

The ruling establishes that transferring shares as a gift constitutes a consideration-less transaction, thus exempting it from capital gains tax.

Case Background

Jai Trust versus Union Government

The case between Mumbai-based Jai Trust and the Union government served as the platform for this significant ruling.

Court’s Decision

Quashing Reassessment Notices

The High Court’s decision involved quashing the reassessment notice issued by tax authorities concerning alleged income escape due to shares gifted by the trust.

Definition of Gift

The court clarified that a gift is a voluntary transfer devoid of consideration, hence not subject to capital gains tax.

Legal Interpretations

Conditions for Capital Gains Tax

The court reiterated that capital gains tax applies when three conditions—capital asset, transfer, and profit/gains—are met.

Importance of Consideration

Highlighting the significance of consideration, the court emphasized that capital gains taxation necessitates consideration received.

Assessing Officer’s Argument

Trust’s Intentions

The assessing officer’s argument presumed a consideration due to the trust’s beneficiary-oriented actions, a notion dismissed by the court.

Rejecting Presumptuous Arguments

The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence over presumptions, dismissing the assessing officer’s speculative stance.

Implications and Precedent

Potential Ramifications

This ruling sets a precedent that could influence future taxation cases involving gifted shares and consideration-less transactions.

Clarity for Investors

Investors and trusts may find clarity in understanding the tax implications of gifting shares, based on this judicial interpretation.

Source: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/gifted-shares-may-escape-capital-gains-tax-if-hc-ruling-sets-precedent-124050800953_1.html

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

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

Delhi High Court’s Game-Changing Decision on GST Cancellation!

editor — Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:47:54 +0000

Introduction

In a recent legal development, the Delhi High Court has addressed the modification of a GST registration cancellation order in a case involving Optimum Viking Satcom India Pvt. Ltd. versus Principal Commissioner Delhi Goods and Services Tax. This significant judgment underscores the importance of detailed reasoning and procedural fairness in such matters, shedding light on the complexities of tax law and administrative procedures.

Facts of the Case & Timeline

Issue of Cancellation: The Petitioner, Optimum Viking Satcom India Pvt. Ltd., contested the cancellation of its GST registration, which was set to be effective from 01.07.2017. The cancellation order was issued on 10.06.2022, alongside a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18.11.2021.
Reasons Behind Cancellation: The SCN raised concerns about the Petitioner's failure to deposit collected tax amounts within three months from the due date. Despite the Petitioner's relocation of business operations to Noida in August 2021 and the filing of returns until 30.11.2021, the cancellation order was issued, citing non-compliance.
Petitioner's Response: The Petitioner objected to the lack of specifics in the SCN regarding un-deposited taxes and the retrospective nature of the cancellation. They argued that the cancellation was conducted without affording them a fair opportunity to object. Moreover, despite complying with return filings until November 2021, the cancellation was issued without adequate reasons, despite the acknowledgment of responses.

Issue

The primary issue at hand pertains to the legality and procedural fairness of canceling the GST registration retrospectively and without providing detailed reasons in both the SCN and the subsequent order.

Held

In its judgment, the Delhi High Court scrutinized the cancellation order and the SCN, finding them lacking in sufficient detail and rationale, particularly regarding the retrospective nature of the cancellation. The Court modified the cancellation to be effective from 30.11.2021, aligning with the Petitioner’s compliance in filing returns until that date. Additionally, the Court allowed the Respondents to pursue any outstanding tax, penalty, or interest dues legally.

category

Shocking Verdict: Madras HC Challenges Tax Authority!

editor — Wed, 17 Apr 2024 05:47:46 +0000

In a recent ruling that has significant implications for taxpayers and tax authorities alike, the Madras High Court delivered a landmark judgment concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. This judgment addresses the issue of rejecting ITC claims solely due to their absence in GSTR-3B filings, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of related documents such as GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 for a comprehensive assessment. Let’s delve into the details of this case and its implications.

Facts of the Case

The case involved Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals challenging assessment orders spanning from 2017 to 2020. The crux of the matter revolved around the company’s ITC claims based on GSTR-2A data, despite filing “NIL” returns in GSTR-3B. These claims were rejected by the State Tax Officer, prompting a legal challenge.

Issue

The central issue at hand was whether Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals was entitled to claim ITC that was not reported in the GSTR-3B returns but was reflected in the GSTR-2A and subsequently in the GSTR-9 annual returns.

Held

In its ruling, the Madras High Court quashed the assessment orders and remanded the case for reconsideration. The court emphasized that rejecting ITC claims solely on the basis of their absence in GSTR-3B filings was unjustified. Instead, it instructed the assessing officer to conduct a thorough examination of all relevant documents to assess the validity of the ITC claim. The petitioner was directed to submit all pertinent documents, and the assessing officer was instructed to issue fresh assessment orders after providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

This judgment, delivered in the case of Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals vs. The State Tax Officer, highlights the importance of substantiating ITC claims with comprehensive documentation. It underscores the necessity for tax authorities to consider all relevant returns and documents before making decisions on ITC claims.

This ruling could potentially lead to a more nuanced understanding and handling of ITC claims, benefiting taxpayers who may have encountered similar issues in their filings.

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

Delhi High Court Orders Refund of ₹35 Lakh to GST Petitioner, Emphasizing Voluntary Compliance and Due Process

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:45:30 +0000

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court’s decision mandates a refund of ₹35 lakh to a GST petitioner, underscoring the significance of voluntary compliance and adherence to due process.

Facts of the Case:

Issue:

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: Citing precedent cases, the petitioner argued that the deposit was made involuntarily under coercion, warranting a refund with interest.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the deposit was voluntary and proceeded with recovery under Section 73 of the GST Act through a Show Cause Notice.
Court Judgment: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the refund of ₹35,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of deposit. The court deemed the deposit as non-voluntary and contrary to guidelines issued by the CBIC.

category

GST Penalty Overturned by Calcutta High Court Due to Emergency Vehicle Substitution, Showcasing Compliance Flexibility

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:23:41 +0000

Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash a GST penalty related to an emergency vehicle change highlights the court’s recognition of flexibility in enforcing compliance.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner lodged an appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the Calcutta HC, which was filed 20 months following an adverse order on June 14, 2022. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of the original order and the demise of the petitioner's first lawyer.
The controversy arose from a tax and penalty imposition concerning the transportation of goods without a valid e-way bill on November 20, 2021. This was due to an emergency vehicle change, preventing the timely amendment of the e-way bill.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around the justification for imposing tax and penalty for the absence of a valid e-way bill during the transportation of goods.

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the writ was genuine and challenged the penalty, citing an emergency vehicle change that hindered the timely amendment of the e-way bill.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent upheld the penalty, highlighting the lack of a valid e-way bill as a compliance failure.
Court Judgment: The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging the absence of intent to evade tax and the genuine circumstances causing the appeal's delay. Consequently, the tax and penalty were ordered to be revoked.
Non-resident taxpayers
Persons subject to TDS under section 51 of the CGST Act.

category

Recovery of Fraudulent GST Input Credit Surges to 12% in FY24

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:13:07 +0000

The recovery rate in Goods and Services Tax (GST) cases concerning input tax credit (ITC) fraud has significantly increased in FY24. Government sources familiar with the matter informed that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) has managed to recover over 12 percent of the dues, a notable rise from the previous 2-3 percent.

Enhanced Recovery Efforts

The DGGI has detected GST frauds amounting to Rs 21,089 crore during FY24, with Rs 2,577 crore already recovered.
These improvements come as the DGGI adopts a proactive approach to identify ITC cases early on.
Utilizing new tools such as artificial intelligence and data analytics, the department is sharing information with other regulatory bodies for swift fraud detection.
The recovery data is anticipated to be publicly disclosed soon.

Challenges in Recovery

Modus Operandi and Common Traps

The prevalent modus operandi involves the creation of counterfeit invoices to avail GST benefits, particularly rampant in sectors like manufacturing and real estate.
Fraudulent schemes often entail the creation of shell entities using unsuspecting individuals' Know Your Customer (KYC) documents.
These entities then generate fake GST receipts, exploiting loopholes to claim double benefits.
Common citizens are also ensnared as fraudsters lure them with promises of loans or other incentives, using their KYC details to establish fraudulent entities.

Conclusion

category