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 |

Pre-deposit is to be paid through Electronic Cash Ledger when Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked due to denial of ITC

editor — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:15:17 +0000

Introduction

In a recent ruling by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the issue of pre-deposit payment through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked due to the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was discussed. This article delves into the facts of the case, the issue at hand, and the court’s decision regarding the matter.

Facts of the Case

KOG-KTV Food Products (India) (P.) Limited (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the Appellate Order passed by the Revenue Department. The Petitioner’s appeal was rejected, prompting them to argue against the necessity of pre-deposit due to the blocking of their Input Tax Credit.

Issue

The central question before the court was whether pre-deposit should be made through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked as a result of ITC denial.

Held

The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 21581 of 2022, made the following determinations:

Recognized that the dispute stemmed from the denial of Input Tax Credit, rendering the Electronic Credit Ledger unavailable for deposit.
Stated that the Petitioner must pre-deposit 10 percent of the disputed amount through the Electronic Cash Ledger to proceed with the appeal.
Concluded by dismissing the writ petition.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court clarifies the obligation of pre-deposit through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is inaccessible due to the denial of Input Tax Credit. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring clarity and adherence to procedural requirements in tax disputes.

category

Extended Period of Limitation: Understanding and Challenging Sec. 74

editor — Sat, 20 Apr 2024 07:48:40 +0000

In the realm of taxation, navigating through various sections and provisions can be daunting. One such area of concern for taxpayers is the extended period of limitation, particularly concerning the issuance of notices and the implications under Section 74. Understanding the nuances of this provision and the scope for challenging it is crucial for taxpayers and professionals alike.

1. Supreme Court Precedents

2. CESTAT Chandigarh Insights

3. Precedents from CESTAT Ahmedabad

Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd: The case of Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. highlighted the importance of proof of intentional revenue suppression or misdeclaration for the validity of orders under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Arya Logistics: In line with the above, Arya Logistics emphasized that in the absence of suppression of fact, a show cause notice issued after the prescribed limit of one year is not sustainable.

4. Insights from CESTAT Delhi

5. Precedents from CESTAT Allahabad

6. Perspectives from Delhi High Court

ITD-ITD CEM JV: Delhi High Court's stance, as seen in the case of ITD-ITD CEM JV, emphasized the necessity of recording reasons to believe in writing for assessment orders passed within the extended period.
H.M. Industries: H.M. Industries reiterated that the absence of assertions regarding concealment or failure to disclose full particulars negates the applicability of the extended period of limitation.

7. Insights from Mumbai CESTAT

Understanding these precedents is pivotal for taxpayers and professionals aiming to navigate through the intricacies of tax laws effectively.

category

High Court of Gujarat Rules on GST Case

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 04:44:00 +0000

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Gujarat has recently issued a noteworthy ruling in the case of OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD versus UNION OF INDIA. This ruling addresses a crucial aspect pertaining to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, particularly focusing on the retrospective application of amendments to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The case, denoted as R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13209/210/212/213/215 of 2023, reached its culmination on 27th March 2024.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD, contested against the UNION OF INDIA, asserting that Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules should not be applicable in their situation. They contended that their online appeals were based on the Order-in-Original made available by the adjudicating authority.
The crux of the issue revolved around the requirement for the petitioner to submit the decision or order being appealed against within seven days of filing the appeal under sub-rule (1) of Rule 108, and the subsequent issuance of a final acknowledgment by the appellate authority indicating the appeal number.

Held:

The High Court determined that the petitioner was indeed obligated to adhere to the stipulated timeline for submitting the decision or order appealed against, as outlined in Rule 108.
While acknowledging the justifiability of the appellate authority's rejection of appeals due to delays, the Court referenced the Minutes of the 48th Meeting of the GST Council. This documented the Council's acceptance of recommendations put forth by the Law Committee.
According to these recommendations, when an order subject to appeal is issued or uploaded on the common portal and is accessible to the appellate authority, the necessity for the appellant to furnish a certified copy of such an uploaded order becomes inconsequential due to its online availability.
Consequently, the retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 108, effective from 26th December 2022, was affirmed by the Court as being clarificatory in nature.
In light of this clarification, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay was deemed untenable. Therefore, the High Court proceeded to quash and set aside the impugned order.

category

Bombay HC Invalidates Tax Order Without Personal Hearing

editor — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:35:47 +0000

In the case of Cowtown Software Design Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India, heard in the Bombay High Court under Writ Petition (L) No. 31152 of 2023, the court addressed the crucial issue of whether the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner by tax authorities was in compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Laws.

Facts of the Case & Timelines:

Issue:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Respondent’s Argument:

Held:

category

Madras High Court Invalidates GST Assessment Over ITC Disparity

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:58:07 +0000

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court addressed the validity of a GST assessment order in the case of Sri Lakshmi Silvers versus The State Tax Officer, Gugai Circle, Salem. The case centered on the adherence to procedural guidelines and principles of natural justice in GST assessments, particularly concerning disparities between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in the supply of base metals, faced a GST assessment order pertaining to the tax demand arising from differences between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B returns and that reflected in the auto-populated GSTR-2A returns for the year 2019-20.
Despite receiving a notice and show cause notice, the petitioner, relying on their accountant, remained unaware, resulting in no response from their side.
The central issue revolved around the validity of the assessment order, particularly concerning principles of natural justice and adherence to specific circulars regarding GST return discrepancies.

Petitioner’s Argument:

Department’s Argument:

Held:

category

Decision by High Court Allows Refund of Reversed ITC When Supplier Pays Tax

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:23:57 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], resolved the writ petition, permitting registered entities to submit refund applications for reversed Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the supplier has subsequently filed returns and paid taxes.

Facts of the case:

In the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], the petitioner, Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition. The petition sought direction for granting Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits on invoices where the recipient had filed subsequent returns and paid taxes.
The petitioner argued that they were compelled by the Revenue Department to pay taxes on invoices where the supplier hadn't filed returns on time. However, the supplier later filed returns and paid taxes, potentially leading to double taxation. Hence, the petitioner sought a refund for the taxes paid on such invoices.
Responding to objections, the petitioner proposed filing a refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, they cited Notification No. 13/2022 dated July 05, 2022, advocating the exclusion of the period between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2023, from the limitation for filing refund applications. The petitioner also requested exclusion of the period between filing the writ petition and the court's order.

Held:

The Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C) 1039/2024, dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondent to adjudicate the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law. Notably, the court recognized the petitioner's eligibility under the Notification, excluding the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing the limitation period for filing refund applications.

category

Madras High Court Strikes Down Excessive GST Demand on Trade Payables

editor — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 04:41:27 +0000

Introduction:

The Madras High Court invalidated the order demanding payment concerning all trade payables, asserting that it exceeded the boundaries outlined in the original show cause notice. This ruling is significant in the realm of audit cases and is poised to have widespread benefits.

Facts of the case:

The petitioner contested an order dated 31.12.2023, arguing its overreach beyond the purview of a preceding show cause notice by subjecting all trade payables to GST.
Following an audit report on 26.09.2023, the petitioner received a notice on 30.09.2023 proposing a tax of Rs. 43,66,708.14. However, the final order imposed a tax exceeding Rs. 90 crores, markedly surpassing the initial estimate.
Despite compliance with statutory Input Tax Credit (ITC) requirements, the petitioner faced penalties.
The crux of the matter lies in the imposition of GST on the entirety of the petitioner's trade payables, a move perceived by the petitioner as beyond the notice's scope and contrary to legal provisions.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contends that the order unjustly expanded the taxable amount well beyond the initial estimation, unfairly taxing trade payables as a taxable supply despite adhering to ITC regulations.

Held:

The Madras High Court deemed the imposition of GST on trade payables, as reflected in financial statements, prima facie unsustainable.

The court nullified the order, instructing the petitioner to remit 10% of the disputed amount, excluding trade payables, and mandated a fresh review with adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

category

Delhi High Court Facilitates Refund Requests for Overpaid Taxes, Streamlining Procedural Deadlines for Taxpayers!

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:38:03 +0000

If the Tax Department has demanded payment for taxes from you because your supplier failed to remit them, and later it is discovered that your supplier did, indeed, pay the taxes, you should apply for a refund.

Facts of the Case & Timelines:

The petitioner was compelled to pay taxes on certain invoices for the fiscal year 2019-2020, due to the delayed filing of returns by Respondent No. 3.

Subsequently, it was revealed that Respondent No. 3 had filed returns and claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the same invoices, resulting in double payment. Consequently, the petitioner sought a refund for the excess payment.

Issue:

The main issue revolved around whether the petitioner is eligible for a refund of the tax paid under the assumption of non-compliance by Respondent No. 3, leading to double payment.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contended that they were compelled to make the tax payment due to the initial non-compliance by Respondent No. 3. With the subsequent filing of returns, they asserted their right to a refund of the tax paid for the mentioned invoices.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondent argued against the petitioner’s refund claim, stating that it was not entertained because the petitioner had not filed a proper refund application as required by Section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held:

The Delhi High Court permitted the petitioner to submit an appropriate refund application in accordance with Section 54 of the Act. Furthermore, it decreed that the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2023, as well as the period from the filing of the petition (19.01.2024) until the present date, should be excluded when calculating the limitation period for submitting a refund application.

The court refrained from discussing the merits of the case and reserved the right to adjudicate the refund claim according to the law.

category

Discretion of Appellate Authority in Admitting Appeals Beyond Limitation Period

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:48:21 +0000

In the case of Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], the esteemed Calcutta High Court determined that the Appellate Authority possesses the discretion to permit the submission of an appeal within one month after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period from the date of order communication, provided sufficient cause is demonstrated, as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

Facts of the case:

The Appellate Authority retains discretion to accept appeals submitted after the limitation period.
The Calcutta High Court, in Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], affirmed that the Appellate Authority possesses discretion to entertain appeals within one month after the expiration of the limitation period as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act").
Arvind Gupta, the petitioner, appealed before the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, mentioned in the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 the period of delay and reasons for the delay:

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority may exercise discretion to admit appeals submitted within one month after the limitation period?

Held:

Relied on, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors. (MAT 82 of 2022) where the Bench held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the CGST Act under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. Hence, the Respondent has the discretion to allow an appeal to be presented within one month after the expiry of the period of limitation stipulated from the date of communication of the order upon sufficient cause being shown as per Section 107 (4) of the CGST Act. Paraphrase
Observed that, it was well within the power of the Respondent to consider the prayer of the Petitioner for condonation of delay. The Impugned Order passed by the Respondent that there is no scope to condone the delay beyond four months suffers from infirmity.
Noted that, the delay was evident from the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 and the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the statutory period.
Held that, the Respondent failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The delay in presenting the appeal before the Respondent was condoned. The Respondent was directed to consider the appeal on merit and decide the same in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

category

CBDT Issues Guidelines on Income Tax Appeal Filing to Reduce Litigation

editor — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:24:06 +0000

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued Circular No. 5/2024 dated March 15, 2024, under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing guidelines for the Department’s appeal filings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), High Courts (HCs), and for Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)/appeals before the Supreme Court (SC) with the aim of reducing litigation. This circular supersedes Circular No. 3/2018 from July 11, 2018, Circular No. 17/2019 from August 8, 2019, and a board letter dated August 20, 2018.

In line with the guidelines, monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals under the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been specified for ITATs, HCs, and SC. However, exceptions have been provided where the decision to appeal or file an SLP shall be based on merits without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limits.

These exceptions include cases where:

It contained Any provision of the Act or the Rules or notification issued thereunder has been held to be constitutionally invalid.on both external and internal assets generated or acquired during the relevant financial year under various tax categories such as CGST, SGST & IGST, and HSN codes.
Any order, notification, instruction, or circular of the Board or the Government has been held to be illegal or ultra vires the Act.
The assessment is based on information related to any offence received from law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Prosecution has been filed by the Department in the relevant case and the trial is pending.
Strictures/adverse comments have been passed against the Department.
The tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as in the case of registration of trusts or institutions.
Addition relates to undisclosed foreign income/undisclosed foreign assets.
Cases involving organized tax evasion or accommodation entries.
Mandated by a Court’s directions.
Writ matters.
Matters related to wealth tax, fringe benefit tax, equalization levy, and other matters outside the Income Tax Act.
Litigation arising out of disputes related to TDS/TCS matters.

The Circular further clarifies that appeals or SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed specified monetary limits for ITAT, HCs, and SC. The tax effect is defined as the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had the total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the disputed issues.

Additionally, procedures for calculating the tax effect in cases involving TDS/TCS are outlined, and reporting mechanisms are established to ensure compliance with the Circular’s provisions.

The Circular aims to streamline the appeals process, reduce unnecessary litigation, and provide clarity to taxpayers on their Income-tax assessments. It emphasizes the importance of deciding on appeal filings based on the merits of each case and encourages the resolution of disputes in a fair and efficient manner.

Source: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Circular-No.-5-2024-Filing-of-appeals-by-Dept.pdf

category