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 |

High Court Decision: IGST Credit Reversal

editor — Sat, 08 Jun 2024 06:47:59 +0000

Introduction:

In a recent landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court addressed the contentious issue of whether Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) credit needs to be reversed when mistakenly claimed instead of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST). This ruling has significant implications for taxpayers across the country.

Facts of the Case:

M/s Cosyn Limited, the petitioner, availed IGST credit amounting to Rs. 1,50,53,298/- in February 2018. However, discrepancies arose regarding the invoices related to the claimed ITC, leading to an assessment order against the petitioner for utilizing IGST credit for payment of SGST liabilities.

Issue:

The central issue in this case revolved around whether IGST credit utilized for SGST payments should be reversed and transferred to the respective state.

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in M.A.T. NO. 2411 OF 2023, held that:

Conclusion:

This judgment provides clarity on the treatment of IGST credit utilized for SGST payments, offering relief to taxpayers facing similar disputes.

CBDT Releases New Functionality in AIS for Taxpayers: Real-time Status of Information Confirmation Process

editor — Tue, 14 May 2024 04:42:44 +0000

Introduction

In a move towards enhancing transparency and ease of compliance for taxpayers, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has introduced a groundbreaking functionality in the Annual Information Statement (AIS). This new feature allows taxpayers to monitor the status of the information confirmation process in real-time. Let’s delve into the details of this significant development and its implications.

Understanding the Annual Information Statement (AIS)

What is AIS and its Significance?

The Annual Information Statement (AIS) serves as a comprehensive record of various financial transactions undertaken by taxpayers, potentially impacting their tax liabilities. It aggregates data from diverse financial sources, offering taxpayers insights into their financial activities from a tax perspective.

How AIS is Generated?

AIS is populated with financial data obtained from multiple sources, including tax deductors/collectors and reporting entities. This data is crucial for assessing taxpayers’ tax obligations accurately.

Importance of Taxpayer Feedback in AIS

One notable aspect of AIS is the provision for taxpayers to provide feedback on the accuracy of the information presented. This feedback mechanism empowers taxpayers to rectify any inaccuracies or discrepancies in the reported data, fostering transparency and accountability.

New Functionality: Real-time Status of Information Confirmation Process

Overview of the New Feature

The recent enhancement in AIS introduces a real-time status display of the information confirmation process. This functionality enables taxpayers to track the progress of their feedback and its resolution by the respective reporting sources.

Key Attributes Visible to Taxpayers

The new feature furnishes taxpayers with vital information regarding the status of their feedback, including:

Implications for Taxpayers

This innovative functionality empowers taxpayers with unprecedented visibility into the information validation process. By providing real-time updates on the status of feedback resolution, taxpayers can ensure the accuracy of their financial information, thereby mitigating potential tax-related issues.

Enhancing Transparency and Compliance

The introduction of this new functionality underscores the CBDT’s commitment to enhancing transparency, accountability, and taxpayer services. By facilitating real-time access to information confirmation status, the CBDT aims to streamline compliance processes and foster trust between taxpayers and reporting entities.

Source: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/PIB2020466.pdf

Understanding Best Judgment Assessment: Section 62 Explained

editor — Mon, 06 May 2024 06:17:31 +0000

In the realm of taxation, Section 62 holds significance, especially concerning the assessment of tax liability for registered entities failing to furnish returns as mandated under sections 39 or 45, even after receiving a notice pursuant to section 46.

The Essence of Section 62

What is Section 62?

Section 62 of the tax laws deals with the scenario where registered entities fail to furnish returns within the stipulated timelines, leading to potential tax assessment issues.

Introduction of the Case:

In the matter brought before the court, the plaintiff, an assessee, raised allegations against the Assistant Commissioner regarding the issuance of assessment orders without following due process. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the orders were passed due to the non-filing of GSTR-3B returns without any prior issuance of a show cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff, being subject to tax assessment, failed to file GSTR-3B returns within the prescribed timeframe. Subsequently, assessment orders were issued by the Assistant Commissioner without providing the plaintiff with a fair opportunity to present their case or address any potential discrepancies.

Issue:

The primary contention revolved around the procedural irregularities in the issuance of assessment orders. The core issue at hand was whether the Assistant Commissioner’s actions, devoid of any show cause notice or hearing opportunity, were in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Held:

Upon review, the court acknowledged the procedural lapses and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that assessment orders issued in an ex parte manner, without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, were untenable. Consequently, the court set aside the ex parte orders for readjudication.

Insights from Madras High Court

Introduction:

The Madras High Court, in the case of Comfort Shoe Components vs. Assistant Commissioner, has delivered a significant ruling regarding the time limit under GST Section 62(2). This case revolves around challenges to orders dated 28.03.2023 and 10.04.2023, where the respondent passed best judgment assessment orders due to the petitioner’s delay in filing returns for December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner cited financial difficulties for the delay and sought the quashing of assessment orders under Section 62(1) of the GST Act. Section 62(2) allows the withdrawal of assessment orders if valid returns are filed within 30 days of service. The petitioner, filing returns late, urged the court to condone the delay.

Issue:

The critical question emerged: If returns are not filed within 30 days under Section 62(2), does the right to file returns still exist?

Held:

The court reasoned that the 30-day limit seems directory, not mandatory. It observed that the petitioner could file returns by 30.01.2030, considering the five-year assessment window starting from 01.01.2024. Highlighting the directory nature of the time limit, the court asserted that the right to file returns should not be curtailed. It affirmed that the limitation could be condoned for reasons beyond the assessee’s control. The ruling emphasizes that the application for delay condonation must be considered on merits, and the petitioner must provide sufficient reasons.

Ashok Varandani’s Case

Introduction:

In a recent case before the Rajasthan High Court, Ashok Varandani, the proprietor of M/s Kamaldeep Printers, challenged certain decisions by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs, along with other authorities. The court’s decision sheds light on crucial legal aspects regarding the maintainability of writ petitions in matters related to tax assessments.

Facts of the Case:

Ashok Varandani, representing M/s Kamaldeep Printers, filed a civil writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner’s place of business was situated at S-5, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The petition contested actions taken by various government entities, including the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and others. The petitioner’s legal representatives presented arguments before the court, advocating for their client’s position.

Issue:

The primary issue at hand was the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Ashok Varandani. The petitioner sought relief against certain tax assessment orders and decisions made by the relevant tax authorities.

Held:

Upon hearing the arguments presented by both parties, the Rajasthan High Court rendered its decision on 07/03/2024. The court referred to a previous order dated 01.03.2024 in a similar case, where it was held that certain writ petitions challenging tax assessment orders were not maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and time limits for filing appeals. It was noted that failure to avail these remedies could render writ petitions non-maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ashok Varandani, citing similar reasons as in the referenced case.

Joy Mathew’s Resolution

Introduction:

The case of Joy Mathew, the proprietor of Abra Film International, before the Kerala High Court, sheds light on the complexities surrounding GST assessment orders and recovery notices. This article delves into the details of the case and the court’s decision.

Facts of the Case:

Joy Mathew, engaged in the production and distribution of films through Abra Film International, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging assessment orders (Exts.P4, P4(a), P4(b), P4(c)) and recovery notices (Exts.P8, P8(b), P8(c)) issued by various tax authorities. The petitioner, registered under the GST Act, faced issues due to discrepancies in filing returns under the new GST regime. Despite regularly filing returns, a shortfall in IGST payment and excess payment towards CGST and SGST led to notices from the State Tax Officer.

Issue:

The primary issue revolved around the validity of the assessment orders and recovery notices issued to Joy Mathew by the tax authorities. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were in derogation of Section 62(1) of the GST Act and argued for their withdrawal.

Held:

Upon hearing the arguments presented by both parties, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal, delivered its judgment on 6th July 2020. The court noted that as per Section 62(2) of the GST Act, if an assessee files returns within 30 days of receiving assessment orders, the orders are automatically recalled. Since Joy Mathew filed returns within the stipulated time, the recovery notices issued by the tax authorities were set aside. The court directed the authorities to re-examine the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion

Section 62 serves as a regulatory mechanism ensuring tax compliance among registered entities. Through judicial interpretations and precedents, its application underscores the balance between procedural adherence and substantive justice.

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 |

High Court Decision: IGST Credit Reversal

category

CBDT Releases New Functionality in AIS for Taxpayers: Real-time Status of Information Confirmation Process

category

Understanding Best Judgment Assessment: Section 62 Explained

category