News Update

Cus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCCX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaGST - Conclusion that taxable person is providing a service to supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law: HCIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US officialI-T- As per Section 119(2)(b), power to condone applications relate to claims for amount exceeding Rs 50 lakhs are to be considered by CBDT; however it is impermissible for CBDT to pass order on merits: HC8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 for unexplained income & u/s 69 for unexplained expenditure not tenable where complete transactional details are furnished & not doubted: HCRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthI-T- Delay in filing ITR is per se insufficient reason to estimate assessee's profit @15% on turnover, more so where audited financial report is filed in timely manner: ITATMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- For invoking section 69A, assessee should be found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article & which is not recorded in the books of account: ITATGovt proposes Guidelines for ethical approach to Coal MiningI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024I-T- Lending money with the primary intention of earning interest can be considered a business activity, but nature and manner of lending, as well as the frequency, should be taken into account: ITAT
 
Input tax credit under GST - complications vis-à-vis payments to suppliers

MAY 23, 2017

By S Sivakumar, LL.B., FCA, FCS, MBA, ACSI, Advocate

THE input tax credit scheme under the GST regime would seem to be far more regimental and regressive, as compared to the current cenvat credit scheme.As we know, under Rules 4(1) and 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, cenvat credit can be takenwithin a period of one year from the date of issue of the invoices by the vendors and service providers in respect of inputs and input services. Under Rule 4(7) of the CCR, there is further stipulation to the effect that, if the payment to the service provider is not effected within 90 days from the date of the invoice, cenvat credit availed would need to be reversed. The benevolent Board, vide its circular No. 990/14/2014-CX-8 dated November 19, 2014 has been kind enough to clarify that, the one year limitation prescribed by Rule 4(7) will not affect the re-taking of credit on the basis of payments made to the service providers.

So far so good.

Under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, input tax credit, in respect of the financial year, will have to be claimed before the due date of filing the return for the month of September of the succeeding financial year, i.e. before October 20, 2018 or before the actual date of filing the annual return, whichever is earlier. Thus, the effective period for claiming ITC could vary depending on the date of the invoice or debit note. For instance, in the case of an invoice dated, let's say, March 31, 2018, the ITC would have to be claimed on or before October 20, 2018 or before the actual date of filing of the annual return, whichever is earlier. Of course, if an enthusiastic registered person files the annual return for the financial year on, let's say, on April 30 of the succeeding year, the effective time frame for availment of credit, especially for invoices dated in the subsequent months, say, January, February and March of the financial year would be significantly lower.

Taking this discussion forward…. I've reproduced the two provisos to Section 16(2)(d) of the CGST Act, below:

Provided further that where a recipient fails to pay to the supplier of goods or services or both,other than the supplies on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis, the amount towards the value of supply along with tax payable thereon within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, an amount equal to the input tax credit availed by the recipient shall be added to his output tax liability, along with interest thereon, in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided also that the recipient shall be entitled to avail of the credit of input tax on payment made by him of the amount towards the value of supply of goods or services or both along with tax payable thereon.

I've also reproduced Rule 2 of the Input Tax Credit Rules…

Reversal of input tax credit in case of non-payment of consideration

(1) A registered person, who has availed of input tax credit on any inward supply of goods or services or both, but fails to pay to the supplier thereof the value of such supply along with the tax payable thereon within the time limit specified in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 16, shall furnish the details of such supply and the amount of input tax credit availed of in FORM GSTR-2 for the month immediately following the period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of issue of invoice.

(2) The amount of input tax credit referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be added to the output tax
liability of the registered person for the month in which the details are furnished. 

(3) The registered person shall be liable to pay interest at the rate notified under sub-section (1) of section 50 for the period starting from the date of availing credit on such supplies till the date when the amount added to the output tax liability, as mentioned in sub-rule (2), is paid.

A combined reading of the above indicates to me that, if the registered person avails credit on accrual basis and does not pay the invoice value to his supplier of goods or services or both within 180 days from the date of (issue of) the invoice, he would be required add the ineligible credit so availed, as his output tax liability in Form GSTR-2 in the month immediately succeeding the six-month period and also the interest thereof.

The question that would arise is whether, the registered person who has availed of ITC and who does not pay his supplier within 180 days from the date of the invoice, can re-avail the credit and if so, within what time frame? Under the GST regime, it seems to me that, there is no provision for re-availment of credit by the registered person who does not pay his supplier within 180 days of the invoice . Neither Section 16 nor the ITC Rules talk of such re-availment or re-taking of credit. Even from a practical perspective, once ITC has been taken by the registered person based on the fulfilment of the conditions specified in Section 16(1) of the CGST Act on the basis of suppliers' invoices, the GST network may not allow credit for the same input unpaid invoices of the suppliers to be again used for re-availment of credit. From my limited understanding of the GST process, it seems to me that the supplier invoices once considered by the registered person for availment of ITC, cannot be used again to re-avail the same ITC, which would get necessitated when supplier invoices are paid after 6 months.

Even in cases where ITC is not availed on accrual basis but on the basis of payment of supplier invoices, the overall limitation of one year from the date of the invoice as prescribed by Section 16(4) would still apply, in my view.

If my views are confirmed, these provisions could create huge issues for Industry, given the fact that while input tax credit under the VAT law and cenvat credit of duties paid on inputs is not linked at all to the payments to suppliers, under the current service tax law, there is no limitation as to re-availment of cenvat credit on the basis of payments to suppliers, once cenvat credit has been reversed on the expiry of 90 days from the date of (issue of) the supplier invoices.

It would then seem that the ITC scheme under the GST regime is far more regressive than one would have expected.

Before concluding….

Under the current dispensation, cenvat credit provisions are contained in the Rules making it easier for the Government to amend the cenvat credit rules, from time to time. On many occasions, the Board has come out with welcome amendments, to the benefit of Industry. Unfortunately, under the GST law, input tax credit related provisions are contained in the Act itself and consequently, any amendment thereof would require the approval of the Parliament as well as all the States and the Union Territories. Hence, any drafting error by the babus could prove very costly for Industry.

GST Rollout | simply inTAXicating

GST RO(W)AD AHEAD | Episode 8 | Panel Discussion | simply inTAXicating

GST RO(W)AD AHEAD | Episode 7 | Panel Discussion | simply inTAXicating

Also See : TIOL TUBE Videos on GST

 

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)

 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Availment of re-credit after payment to vendor under GST

This is in regard to advisory shared in TIOL today regarding ITC under GST wherein concern has been raised regarding ineligibility of ITC reversed due to non payment of vendor within 180 days from invoice date. However if we refer the Final ITC rule released last week sub clause (4) under clause (2) it has been provided that the re-credit is eligible without any time limit of subsection 4 of section 16 of CGST ACT. It seems that the Re-credit is eligible and the time bar till 20th October of next FY or actual date of filing of Annual Return is not applicable in case of Re-credit.

Posted by Susanta Datta
 
Sub: Third proviso to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017

Dear Sir,

Third proviso to Sec. 16(2) of the Act provides that -

"Provided also that the recipient shall be entitled to avail of the credit of input tax on payment made by him of the amount towards the value of supply of goods or services or both along with tax payable thereon."

Will not this provision be sufficient for re-availment of ITC (on payment made to the supplier), where the credit has been reversed on account of 2nd proviso to sec. 16(2) i.e. due to non-payment.

Request you to clarify.

Best Regards,
Vivek Bapat

Posted by Vivek Bapat
 
Sub: Re-credit after payment to vendor under GST

In my opinion, the re-credit is available if payment including tax amount has been paid to the vendor after period of 180 days and this is clear from the Final CGST Act, 2017 itself. The third proviso to section 16(2) clearly specifies that recipient shall be entitled to avail the credit of input tax on payment made towards value of supply of goods or services along with tax payable.

Furthermore, Final ITC Rules also indicate that there is no time limit for availing re-credit as is presently provided for in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 also.

REGARDS,

CA PRADEEP JAIN

Posted by Pradeep Jain Jain
 

TIOL Tube Latest

India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.