google-site-verification=NPJ1Hg9FvVuCvHJPX3hePER6PNkTZEAzBSif02XK-Ns
top of page
Writer's pictureCA Hemant Singhal

GST UPDATE | Dated: 05 March 2024

1. GST DEADLINES


1.1. Deadlines | March 2024


●      GST Compliance Calendar – March 2024


2. GST PORTAL UPDATES


2.1.Instances of Delay in registration reported by some Taxpayers despite successful Aadhar Authentication in accordance with Rule 8 and 9 CGST Rules, 2017-reg

(Advisory Dated 28-02-2024)


In accordance with Rule 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, pertaining to the verification and approval of registration applications, following is informed:

Where a person has undergone Aadhaar authentication as per sub-rule (4A) of rule 8 but has been identified in terms of Rule 9(aa) by the common portal for detailed verification based on risk profile, your application for registration would be processed within thirty days of application submission.


2.2. Blocking the generation of E-Way Bill without e-Invoice/IRN details for B2B and B2E transactions for e-invoice enabled tax payers

(Advisory Dated 05-01-2024)

On analysis it is found that some of the taxpayers, who are eligible for e-Invoicing, are generating e-Waybills without linking with e-Invoice for B2B and B2E transactions. In some of these cases, the invoice details entered separately under e-Waybill and e-Invoice are not matching with respect to the certain parameters. This is leading in mismatch in the e-Waybill and e-Invoice statements. Hence, to avoid such situations, e-Waybill generation will not be allowed without e-Invoice details from 1st March 2024.


2.3. Validation of HSN Codes in E way Bill System

(Advisory Dated 05-01-2024)

The taxpayers, with AATO less than Rs. 5 Crores, need to provide at least 4 digit HSN code. This validation will be implemented in e-way bill System from 1st February 2024.

Hence, the taxpayers are advised to make necessary changes in their systems and enter 4 / 6 digit HSN codes while generating the e-way bills through web and API systems from 1st Feb. 2024.


3. Judicial Pronouncement


3.1.Bunching of SCN is against spirit of provisions of Section 73 of GST Act

                                                          (Titan Company Ltd. vs The Joint Commissioner of GST)

Where bunching of show cause notices for multiple assessment years under Section 73 of CGST Act had exceeded individual three-year limitation period for each year, High Court held such bunching invalid, directing separate adjudication for each year.


3.2.GST E-Way Bill Expired due to Accident: Calcutta HC quashes Penalty under West Bengal GST Act

                             (Saraf Trexim Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State tax)

Where delay in generating new e-way bill was reasonably explained, supported by circumstances like accident, and there was no intent to violate provisions of CGST Act, imposition of 200% penalty may not be justified.


3.3.Delhi HC orders Re-Adjudication in GST matter due to Verification Deficiency by Proper Officer

                                           (Svelte Furnitures Private Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 95 Delhi & Anr)

The Delhi High Court has directed a re-adjudication in a Goods and Service Tax (GST) matter, citing the failure of the proper officer to adequately verify the petitioner’s submissions.


3.4.No Notice issued regarding Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Delhi HC sets aside Order

(Rane Brake Lining Limited Vs Superintendent, Range-17, Central Gst Division & Anr)


The Delhi High Court set aside the order cancelling Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration as the department failed to issue a notice regarding retrospective Cancellation. The bench observed that when the petitioner did not submit a reply, the proper officer recorded that the reply of the petitioner had been considered and at the stage when the petitioner did submit a reply, the Proper Officer recorded that no reply was filed.


3.5. Interest on Delayed Payment of Tax deposited in Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL)

(Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Range-II)

Assesse was not liable to pay interest on GST amount which was routinely deposited into ECL within due date for reason that tax amount had already been credited to Government within prescribed time limit - It was to be directed that credit to account of Government would always occur not later than last date for filing monthly returns in terms of provisions of section 39(7) - Further, once amount is paid by generating GST PMT-06, said amount would be initially credited to account of Government immediately upon deposit, at which point, tax liability of a registered person would be discharged to extent of deposit made to Government while thereafter, for purpose of accounting only, it would be deemed to be credited to ECL as stated in Explanation (a) to section 49(11).


3.6. Relief in Payment of Interest amidst COVID-19 Disruption

(Everyday Banking and Retail Assets. Vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST))

Where assessee was called upon to pay interest in respect of four assessment years vide a caution notice, since business of assessee was affected during COVID-19 pandemic, assessee was to be directed to pay amounts demanded in caution notice in three equal monthly instalments.


3.7. Reversal of Harsh Bail Cancellation and Cautionary Warning on Future Summons Compliance

(Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence Vs. Manish Goyal)

After grant of regular bail, respondent appeared before authorities pursuant to summons received by him on various occasions. Therefore, order passed by Sessions Court cancelling bail on account of non-appearance on one or two dates was harsh and was to be set aside. However, respondent was to be warned that in future, if he did not appear pursuant to summons issued by DGGI, his bail would be liable to be cancelled.


3.8. Constitutional Validity of Anti profiteering measures

(Reckitt Benckiser India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India)

Anti-profiteering measures under section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 as well as Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of CGST Rules, 2017 are constitutionally valid; for arbitrary exercise of power under anti-profiteering mechanism by erroneously enlarging scope of proceedings beyond jurisdiction or on account of not considering genuine basis of variations, such orders are to be set aside.

 

 

Disclaimer: “This material is intended to provide general information on particular subject(s) and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s) or a substitute to obtaining professional service or advice. It is strongly recommended to seek professional advice before implementation of any of the aspects covered in the presentation.”)


Author can be reached at ca.hsinghal@gmail.com; +91 99172 11511

9 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page