APRIL 10, 2019

By Vijay Kumar

The GST Invoice - Be careful about the Serial Number

AS per Rule 46(b) of the CGST Rules 2017, tax invoice issued by the registered person should contain:

a consecutive serial number not exceeding sixteen characters, in one or multiple series, containing alphabets or numerals or special characters - hyphen or dash and slash symbolised as "-" and "/" respectively, and any combination thereof, unique for a financial year;

Did they mean alphabets or letters of the alphabet? Alphabet is the group of letters of a language. Anyway, GST is so simple that you should not bother about language, except when you are hauled before a court.

Now, the GSTN has given an advisory that:

This rule implies that with the start of new financial year 2019-20 (w.e.f. 01/04/2019), a new invoice series, unique for the financial year is to be started by the GST taxpayers. Similar provision is there in Rule 49 of the CGST Rules 2017, in respect of issue of Bill of Supply by registered taxpayers availing Composition Scheme or supplying exempted goods or services or both.

If the provisions of Rule 46 or Rule 49 are not adhered to, apart from being a compliance issue, taxpayers may face problem while generating E-Way Bill on E-way bill system or furnishing their Form GSTR 1 or for applying for refund on GST Portal. It is therefore necessary that suitable modification may be made by the taxpayers in this regard in their invoices or bill of supply, to avoid any inconvenience in the future.

If you have not changed that invoice number, better do it immediately to avoid

1. compliance issue

2. problem while generating E-Way Bill

3. problem while furnishing Form GSTR 1

4. applying for refund

5. inconvenience

Team GSTN is very polite and they end their advisory with a 'thanks'! But this advisory came on 4th April, when the changes should have taken place on 1st April. Couldn't they advise a little earlier?

GST Advisory to GST Taxpayers on Invoice Series to be used wef 1st April, 2019, dated 04/04/2019

ST in GST.

1. Whether the appellant, who had not taken credit of CENVAT in their account (which they could legitimately do prior to the CGST Act coming into force), can now seek transfer of such credit as Input Tax credit in CGST Act or cash refund?

2. On issues which straddle the old and new enactments, viz., Central Excise Act, 1944/Finance Act, 1994 and the new CGST Act, to what extent does the CESTAT have jurisdiction to decide?

These were questions answered by a Single Member Bench of the CESTAT last week. The answers were:

1. A plain reading of Section 140 of the CGST Act shows that it provides for transfer of CENVAT credit lying in balance in the assessee's account just before the CGST Act came into force. It does not provide for CENVAT credit which may have accrued to the assessee prior to this date but which was not in balance in their books of account. There is also no provision either under the old laws or under the CGST Act of cash refund of any CENVAT which may have accrued to the assessee prior to the CGST Act coming into force but which the assessee has not taken in their account.

2. CESTAT was created under the Customs Act, 1962 and has been given powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the powers of interpretation and application of these laws alone is the jurisdiction of the CESTAT. However, when other laws have a bearing on the application of these three laws, (e.g.: SEZ Act, Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, various Environmental laws), interpretation of such laws also falls within the scope of CESTAT insofar as they affect the application of the Customs Act, Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994. The CGST Act has a different appellate mechanism for decisions under CGST Act. However, in transitional cases, CESTAT has to interpret and apply the provisions of CGST Act, to the extent and only to the extent, they modify the provisions of Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994. Other transitional provisions such as transfer of CENVAT credit lying in balance as Input Tax credit under GST is purely a provision of the CGST Act and CESTAT has no role in interpreting or applying such provisions.

Please see 2019-TIOL-998-CESTAT-HYD

IIM is an Educational Institution, declares AAAR: Any doubt on that? Please see GST on IIM in these columns. The situation was that IIM Calcutta got an exemption while those in Indore and Bangalore were to suffer GST. Finally IIMs have got recognition under GST as educational Institutions. What were they earlier? The point is, what you understand normally need not be legally correct. If you thought the IIM was an educational institution, you were wrong - then, but you are right now. Now the AAAR, Bangalore has in its latest order conceded that IIM is an educational institution and eligible for exemption. The AAAR held,

- Since IIMs can award degrees recognized by law with effect from 31st January 2018, they are now considered as an 'educational institution' as defined under clause 2(y) of Notification No 12/2017 CT(R).

- Therefore, during the period 1st July 2017 to 30th January 2018, IIMs cannot be termed as 'educational institutions' since they were not qualified to award degrees which were recognized by law.

- The intention of the law in providing a separate exemption specifically for IIMs makes it evident that IIMs were not considered as an educational institution" as defined in clause 2(y) of the Notification No 12/2017 CT(R)

- All IIMs (which includes IIMB) became eligible for exemption as an educational institution with effect from 31st January 2018.

When I wrote What they don't teach you in Management Schools, a very senior officer called me to say he was amused by the logic of the AAR. And that is Jest GST.

Please see 2019-TIOL-10-AAAR-GST

GST Double writ - High Court imposes cost: On 1.4.2019, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition with the following order:

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Court with fresh writ petition with the same cause of action, on behalf of the concerned aggrieved parties. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

On 5.4.2019, another writ petition of the same petitioner with the same counsel came up before the (same) High Court seeking the reliefs of:

(a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Circular No. 34/8/2018-GST, dated 01.03.2018 as modified by Circular No. 46/20/2018-GST, dated 06.06.2018 to the extent they seek to levy GST on sale of REC scrips; or

(b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the formation of a High-Level Committee to examine the issue of levy of GST on trading margins on sale of REC scrips and intermediaries in the transaction; and/or

(c) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that explanation to Section 2(102) to the CGST Act be given prospective effect from 01.02.2019;

The petitioner had submitted that he had not filed any other proceedings in respect of this subject matter either in this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

When asked specifically whether the present Petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking the same relief, Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, disclosed that indeed the present Petitioner had filed W.P. (C) 3246/2019 seeking the same relief which had come up before another Division Bench.

The High Court observed,

Nowhere in the present petition are the above facts concerning the filing of the earlier petition and its withdrawal been mentioned. On the contrary in para 31 an incorrect statement has been made that the Petitioner had not filed any such petition earlier in this Court.

With the counsel on both occasions being the same, and being fully aware of the facts, it was imperative for the Petitioner to have made a full and correct disclosure of all the material facts concerning the filing of the earlier petition by the same Petitioner seeking the same relief. That not having been done, the Court dismisses the present petition with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- which would be paid by the Petitioner to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) on or before 30th April 2019 and placing on record the proof of payment of such costs.

- W.P.(C) 3483/2019 - 2019-TIOL-787-HC-DEL-GST

GST in the BJP Manifesto: The BJP manifesto considers GST as one of the best things that could have happened to this country.

Some of the historic achievements: Swachh Bharat Mission, Ujjawala Yojana, Saubhagya Yojana, Demonetisation, GST,…

Goods and Service Tax (GST) has resulted in overall lowering of tax rates and increased revenue collection, particularly for States. When compared to base year of 2015-16, GST revenue for all states have increased by 50% in three years. We will continue with the simplification of GST process by engaging in dialogue with all stakeholders.

Implementation of One Nation, One Tax through GST has brought all businesses under single tax net.

To protect the interests of small traders, we will provide an accident insurance of 10 lakh rupees to all the traders registered under GST.

We have set an example of inclusive federal governance through steps such as the creation of NITI Aayog, establishment of the GST council and restructuring of central schemes in line with our pledge of cooperative federalism.

GST is indeed historic …………. and irreversible

Until next week