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
 
Is time limit for availment of ITC also applicable to RCM?

APRIL 27, 2020

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

THE provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the time limit for availment of input tax credit, is reproduced below-

16(4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the due date of furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.

Provided that the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit after the due date of furnishing of the return under Section 39 for the month of September, 2018 till the due date of furnishing of the return under the said section for the month of March, 2019 in respect of any invoice or invoice relating to such debit note for supply of goods or services or both made during the financial year 2017-18, the details of which have been uploaded by the supplier under sub-section (1) of section 37 till the due date for furnishing the details under sub-section (1) of said section for the month of March, 2019.

The question that would naturally arise, is whether, Section 16(4) is applicable to ITC availed under the reverse charge mechanism.

As of now, the liability to pay GST under the Reverse Charge Mechanism ('RCM') is fastened on the recipient of the goods or services, under Section 9(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 which is reproduced below-

9(3) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of supply of goods or services or both, the tax on which shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of such goods or services or both and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both.

The notification issued u/s 9(3) is Notification No. 13/2017-CTR dated 28 th June, 2017 as amended.

Let's further study some of the relevant definitions and statutory provisions…

2(105) "supplier" in relation to any goods or services or both, shall mean the person supplying the said goods or services or both and shall include an agent acting as such on behalf of such supplier in relation to the goods or services or both supplied;

2(66) "invoice" or "tax invoice" means the tax invoice referred to in section 31;

2(94) "registered person" means a person who is registered under section 25 but does not include a person having a Unique Identity Number;

2(98) "reverse charge" means the liability to pay tax by the recipient of supply of goods or services or both instead of the supplier of such goods or services or both under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 9, or under sub-section (3) or subsection (4) of section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act ;

31(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2)-

…………………..

f) a registered person who is liable to pay tax under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 9 shall issue an invoice in respect of goods or services or both received by him from the supplier who is not registered on the date of receipt of goods or services or both;

Rule 36 (1) The input tax credit shall be availed by a registered person, including the Input Service Distributor, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely,-

(a) an invoice issued by the supplier of goods or services or both in accordance with the provisions of section 31;

(b) an invoice issued in accordance with the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (3) of section 31, subject to the payment of tax;

(c) a debit note issued by a supplier in accordance with the provisions of section 34;

(d) a bill of entry or any similar document prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 or rules made thereunder for the assessment of integrated tax on imports;

(e) an Input Service Distributor invoice or Input Service Distributor credit note or any document issued by an Input Service Distributor in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 54

A combined study of these provisions would make it clear that, though the liability to pay GST under reverse charge is fastened on the recipient of the goods or services, such a recipient does not become the supplier of such goods or services, though, such recipient would become the person liable to pay tax under Section 9(3).

A further study of Section 31(3)(f) and Rule 36(1)(b) makes it clear that the term 'registered person liable to pay tax under Section 9(3) (i.e under reverse charge) is used in contra distinction to the term 'supplier', consequent to which, the recipient who is required to pay GST under reverse charge and raise the self-invoice under Rule 36(1)(b) cannot be treated as the supplier of such goods or services, despite that such recipient becomes liable to pay GST in respect of such supply of goods or services under Section 9(3).

Hence, in my strong view, the time limit prescribed for availing ITC under Section 16(4) would not apply to the GST paid by the recipient of the goods or services under reverse charge.

Before concluding…

In my view, assessees who have mistakenly left out availment of ITC on import transactions (covered by Bills of Entry) and on other transactions that are covered under RCM, can avail of ITC, on the basis of self-invoices raised under Rule 31(3)(f) for transactions that took place in FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. We must bear in mind that, the time limit for availing ITC under Section 16(4) is qua invoices and debit notes, and not qua the supplies.

In cases where assessees want to play it very safe, vis-à-vis certain negative developments like the Rajasthan AAR's decision in Clay Crafts India Pvt Ltd 2020-TIOL-64-AAR-GST, wherein, it was ruled that GST under RCM is payable by the company even in respect of remuneration paid to executive/wholetime directors, the option of now paying the GST liability with interest for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and availing the ITC thereof on the basis of self-invoices raised under Section 31(3)(f) is always open.

In my further view, any delay in raising of the self-invoices under Section 31(3)(f) or the payment of the GST under RCM (which has to be discharged along with the applicable interest) in respect of transactions covered under reverse charge, would not affect the availment of input tax credit.

[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)

 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: RCM time limit

Sir,here in section the word pertain referes to tax period not year of invoice date. Hence, it would be under high litigative and if demand is raised then interest would be chargeable @24% for wrong availment of ITC .In my view limit is applicable for RCM credit too

Posted by Prashant saradwat
 
Sub: RCM Time Limit

Section 16(4) refers only "Invoice".

Section 31(3)(f) mandates issue of "Invoice" in RCM cases

Section 16(2)(a) refers "or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed"

Rule 36(1)(b) prescribe "Invoice" issued in accordance with Section 31(3)(f)

All above proves Section 16(4) applies to RCM cases also.

Kindly consider the above or revert as to why you strongly believe that time limit not applies to RCM.

Posted by Vinod Yadav
 

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.