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
 
Cumulative adjustment in Rule 36(4) - retrospective?

APRIL 20, 2020

By Jigar Doshi & Pratik Shah

IN the backdrop of COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian government announced an array of relief measures including a few from GST perspective. On April 3, 2020, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) has issued multiple notifications with the objective of providing a breather to the taxpayers from the innumerable GST compliances. Amongst these Notifications, Notification no. 30/2020-CT dt. 03.04.2020 (referred as said Notification) was issued which inserted the following proviso in Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 -

"Provided that the said condition shall apply cumulatively for the period February, March, April, May, June, July and August, 2020 and the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the tax period September, 2020 shall be furnished with the cumulative adjustment of input tax credit for the said months in accordance with the condition above.".

It is a well-known fact that, Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, 2017 has been in news lately for all the wrong reasons. As if the GST compliances were not already complicated enough, in October 2019, the CBIC inserted sub-rule 4 to Rule 36 of CGST Rules, 2017 [49/2019-CT dt. 09.10.2019] wherein the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed was restricted to the extent of 10% [75/2019-CT dt. 26.12.2019] (20% from October 2019 to December 2019) of the eligible credit available in the GSTR 2A (i.e. ITC in respect of invoices or debit notes, the details of which have been uploaded by its suppliers).

Post amendment, the taxpayer was supposed to put the remaining ITC pertaining to the invoices and/or debit notes not uploaded by the supplier in abeyance and could only claim this credit when the respective invoices or debit notes were actually uploaded by the supplier. In common parlance, the ITC claimed in GSTR 3B should not be exceeding 110% of the ITC reflected in GSTR 2A to be checked on the due date of filing of GSTR 1 of the same month itself.

Well, it is as complicated as it sounds; therefore, let's understand by way of a numeric illustration:

ITC available as per books of accounts (GST on inward supplies) = 100

ITC appearing in GSTR 2A (GST as per the returns uploaded by suppliers) = 70

ITC available as per amended Rule 36(4) = 77

ITC in abeyance (temporarily on hold) = 100-77 = 23

Hence, as per the above example, while the taxpayer was eligible to avail the provisional ITC of Rs 100/- before the amendment, it comes down to Rs. 77/- post amendment. After the amendment was brought in effect, there was a lot of hue and cry and multiple writs were filed against this amendment in various High Courts alleging this amendment to be ultra vires the law (on the reasoning that Rule 36(4) is subordinate to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 16 does not cap availment of ITC in a situation where the invoices are not uploaded by the supplier). The current situation on the matter is that various Writs have been filed to counter the validity of the said Rule.

The endurance became even further painful when the said Notification was introduced to relieve the taxpayers from the compliance of calculating 10% ITC as given under Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, which I believe was unnecessary in the first place.

The recent Notification has added a proviso (as mentioned and extracted earlier) which implies that for the months of February through August 2020, Rule 36(4) will be applied cumulatively instead of the monthly drill and the adjustments, if any, will be done in the month of September 2020. Though the Notification has the right intent to provide aid to small taxpayers who must be facing cash crunch and working capital issues owing to the slowdown, it has apparently not provided the succor as intended, as can be seen from the suceeding discussions.

The industry seems to have a divided view of the said Notification. The first school of thought reads the Notification in strict construction and interprets that though the capping of 20% of ITC was brought in by CBIC in October 2019 [later capped at 10%, in December 2019], the relief of cumulative adjustment only applies from February to August 2020 owing to the extraordinary situation. Therefore, for the months of October to January 2020, monthly computations and compliances with respect to Rule 36(4) remain unchanged as done in the past.

Conversely, the second school of thought, and a rather aggressive one is interpreting the said Notification to be applicable retrospectively; i.e. from October 2019 onwards. So, as per this school of thought, the capping of 20%/10% ITC should be done cumulatively for the period October 2019 to August 2020 and the necessary adjustments would be carried out in September 2020.

It is noteworthy that this Notification came on April 3, 2020 and the due date to file the GSTR 3B for February 2020 had already elapsed. Therefore, the industry must have complied with 10% ITC capping for February 2020. However, for the month of March, we are already at the due date and this ambiguity may prove to be alarming as the businesses may take different views and claim ITC (kept in abeyance) retrospectively i.e. claim the unclaimed credit in March month whether or not it is appearing in GSTR 2A.

The need of the hour calls for CBIC to clear the air around the issue so that the industry doesn't miss the bus by filing appropriate returns.  

[The authors are Founding Partners of TTMS LLP (known as TMSL) and the views expressed are strictly personal.]

(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)

 


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

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.