1.GST DEADLINES
1.1.Deadlines | September 24
● GST Compliance Calendar – September 2024
Due Date | Return/ Compliance | Remarks |
11 Sep 24 | GSTR1 (Aug 24) | Return of Outward Supplies- Monthly Return |
13 Sep 24 | GSTR1 (Aug 24)- IFF | Return of Outward Supplies- QRMP |
14 Sep 24 | GSTR2B (Aug 24) | Auto Drafted ITC Statement available for download |
20 Sep 24 | GSTR3B (Aug 24) | Last Date for Payment of Tax and Return for Normal Taxpayers (Monthly GTSR3B) |
25 Sep 24 | PMT-06 | Last date of payment of Tax and Return for taxpayers under QRMP scheme. |
07 Sep 24 | TDS Payment (IT) | TDS Payment for the month of Aug 24 (Income Tax Act) |
15 Sep 24 | Advance Tax Payment (IT) (August-September) | Due date for Payment of Advance tax for the Quarter ending September 24 |
GST Annual Return and Reconciliation Statement (GSTR 9 and GSTR 9C)
Due Date is 31st December 2024 for F.Y. 2023-24.
Taxpayer | Description | Aggregate Turnover | Form | Compliance |
Normal Taxpayer | Annual Return | More than 5cr. | GSTR 9 & 9C | Compulsory |
Annual Return | Between 2cr. to 5cr. | GSTR 9 | Compulsory | |
Annual Return | Less than 2cr. | GSTR 9 | Optional | |
Composition Taxpayer | Annual Return | NA | GSTR 9A | Compulsory |
E-Commerce operator | Annual Return | NA | GSTR 9B | Compulsory |
2.GST PORTAL UPDATES
2.1 Advisory for furnishing bank account details before filing GSTR-1/IFF Notification No. 38/2023
(Advisory dated 23/08/2024)
1. As per Rule 10A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 notified vide notification no. 31/2019 dated 28.06.2019, a taxpayer is required to furnish details of a valid Bank Account within a period of 30 days from the date of grant of registration, or before furnishing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both in FORM GSTR-1or using Invoice Furnishing Facility (IFF), whichever is earlier.
2. Now, from 01st September, 2024 this rule is being enforced. Therefore, for the Tax period August-2024 onwards, the taxpayer will not be able furnish GSTR-01/IFF as the case may be, without furnishing the details of a valid Bank Account in their registration details on GST Portal.
3. It is informed that in absence of a valid bank account details in GST registration, you will not be able to file GSTR-1 or IFF as the case may, be from August-2024 return period.
2.2 Advisory for Introduction of RCM Liability/ITC Statement
(Advisory dated 23/08/2024)
To assist taxpayers in correctly reporting Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) transactions, a new statement called "RCM Liability/ITC Statement" has been introduced on the GST Portal. This statement will enhance accuracy and transparency for RCM transactions by capturing the RCM liability shown in Table 3.1(d) of GSTR-3B and its corresponding ITC claimed in Table 4A(2) and 4A(3) of GSTR-3B for a return period.
FOR OPENING BALANCE PLEASE RECONCILE TILL TAX PERIOD:
Ø Monthly filers: Report the opening balance considering RCM ITC till the July-2024 return period.
Ø Deadline to declare Opening Balance: Opening balance can be declared till 31.10.2024.
Ø Amendments in Opening Balance: Taxpayers can rectify any errors committed while declaring the opening balance on or before 30.11.2024, he shall be provided three opportunities for the same.
2.3 Advisory for Biometric-Based Aadhaar Authentication and Document Verification for GST Registration Applicants of Uttarakhand
(Advisory dated 28/07/2024)
This is to inform taxpayers about recent developments concerning the application process for GST registration. It is advised to keep the following key points in mind during the registration process.
1. Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has been amended to provide that an applicant can be identified on the common portal, based on data analysis and risk parameters for Biometric-based Aadhaar Authentication and taking a photograph of the applicant along with the verification of the original copy of the documents uploaded with the application.
2. The above-said functionality has been developed by GSTN. It has been rolled out in Uttarakhand on 28th July 2024.
3. The said functionality also provides for the document verification and appointment booking process. After the submission of the application in Form GST REG-01, the applicant will receive either of the following links in the e-mail.
3. Judicial Pronouncements
3.1 When there was no intention/mens rea for evasion of tax by assessee, order detaining assessee’s vehicle along with goods was to be set aside: High Court Of Allahabad
(Kumar Cargo Solution vs. State of U.P; 01/08/2024)
Impugned order was issued in form of MOV-09 by revenue leading to detention of assessee's vehicle along with goods it was transporting. Detention was based on a bona fide mistake and that there was no intention to evade tax.
It was held that, “Without there being any intention/mens rea for evasion of tax, no penalty can be imposed. Furthermore, in instant case, at time of seizure all documents were presented except one document being e-invoice, which was also downloaded on very same day. Therefore intention to evade tax was not supported by factual matrix of case and accordingly impugned order was to be set aside directing revenue to release vehicle and goods.”
3.2 Where assessee’s goods detained on ground that at time of inspection of vehicle no E-way bill was found with regard to an invoice, E-way bill produced before seizure order passed, discrepancy cured, no contravention of any provision of CGST Act, impugned orders were to be set aside: High Court Of Allahabad
(Bans Steel vs. State of U.P;09/08/2024)
Assessee’s goods were detained on ground that at time of inspection of vehicle, no E-way bill was found with regard to an invoice and there after impugned order was passed. But, before seizure order could be passed, E-way bill in respect of such tax invoice was produced in which no discrepancy was pointed out by any of respondent authorities.
It was held that, “Only ground for detention was that once goods in question was not accompanying with proper documents, there was intention to avoid payment of tax. However, once E-way bill was produced before seizure order could be passed, discrepancy was cured. GST authorities have full mechanism as well as power that after detaining goods, if same was not accompanying with proper documents, authority could have made survey of business premises of assessee to find out correctness of transaction but respondent authorities had chosen in their wisdom not doing so. Once E-way bill was produced before seizure order could be passed, it could not be said that any contravention of provision of CGST Act had been made by assesse. Therefore, impugned orders were to be set aside.”
3.3 Proceedings under Section 129 read in conjunction with Section 130, require an intent to evade payment of tax: High Court of Allahabad
(Aa Plastics (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2;02/08/2024)
Assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing and supply of LD Polythene sheets and LD polythene bags. Said goods were in transit and same were detained on ground that E-way bill had expired to which reason given by assessee was that truck driver had diverted from route due to personal reasons without informing. Assessee had also generated new E-way bill, which was presented next day of detention. Despite said explanation provided by assessee, revenue seized goods and imposed a penalty.
Section 129 of the CGST Act deals with detention, seizure and release of goods in case violation of the provisions of the CGST Act is found. Section 130 deals with confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty. Both the sections revolve around a similar issue and provide for the proceedings available at the hands of the proper Officer upon him having found the goods in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the CGST Act being one of them. Upon a purposive reading of the sections, it would sufice to state that the legislation makes intent to evade tax a sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act.
It was held that, “the proceedings under Section 129 read in conjunction with Section 130, require an intent to evade payment of tax. In instant case, revenue had failed to establish any mens rea or intent to evade tax by assesse. Therefore impugned order was to be quashed.”
3.4 Cancellation of assessee’s GST registration with retrospective effect could not be sustained, as SCN issued to assessee did not propose cancellation of GST registration from a retrospective date, which was a violation of principles of natural justice: High Court Of Delhi
(Alibaba Enterprises vs. Sales Tax Officer Class-II/ AVATO Ward-83; 01/08/2024)
In instant case, decision for cancellation of assessee’s GST registration with retrospective date could not be sustained, as SCN did not propose cancellation of GST registration from a retrospective date, which was a violation of principles of natural justice and decision to cancel assessee’s GST registration with retrospective effect was not informed by reason. Therefore impugned order was to be modified, restricting cancellation of assessee’s GST registration to be effective from 13.11.2023, date on which SCN was issued.”
3.5 Where assessee, arrested for wrongful availment of ITC by showing purchases from non-existent or fraudulent suppliers, was granted regular bail: High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
(Vishal Chauhan vs. Haryana State GST; 14/08/2024)
It was held that, “Assessee was in custody since 20-02-2024 and had no criminal antecedents, he had a permanent adobe and there was no likelihood of assessee fleeing from country as he was ready to surrender his passport also. Trial against assessee was likely to take time and show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) upon him was yet to be adjudicated upon and exact liability of assesse was yet to be fixed. Sentence to be awarded in instant case was directly linked with quantum of evasion of tax and prosecution of assessee was also linked with determination of evasion of tax because if there was no evasion of tax, there could be no criminal liability. Therefore assessee was to be released on regular bail, subject to his executing personal bonds with two solvent sureties each in sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs.”
3.6 Seizure of cash and silver bars recovered during search not sustainable, as these were not subject matter of supply and evasion of tax: Supreme Court Of India
(Commissioner of GST vs. Deepak Khandelwal; 14/08/2024)
In impugned judgment, High Court had held that various types of movable assets which might be found during search, although broadly falling under definition of ‘goods’ under CGST Act, could not be seized and only those goods, which were subject matter of supply and consequent evasion of tax could be seized under Section 67 of Act. Further, seizure of documents or books or things was permissible only for aid in proceedings that might be instituted under Act and these were required to be returned when no longer required. Therefore, seizure of currency and silver bars in this case on ground of it being unaccounted wealth, was not sustainable as purpose of Section 67 of Act, was not recovery of tax but to empower authorities to unearth tax evasion. It was therefore directed to return seized currency and silver, more so when these had not been relied upon in notice issued subsequently.
It was held that, “Since no case under Article 136 of Constitution had been made out for interference against impugned judgment, SLP filed by Revenue was to be dismissed.”
3.7 States can tax mineral rights & mineral land w.r.e.f. 1-4-2005, but interest & penalty for demands made prior to 25-7-2024 to be waived: Supreme Court Of India
(Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India; 14/08/2024)
States can tax mineral rights & mineral land w.r.e.f. 1-4-2005, but interest & penalty for demands made prior to 25-7-2024 to be waived.
While the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision in MADA (supra) the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1 April 2005.
The time for payment of the demand of tax shall be staggered in instalments over a period of twelve years commencing from 1 April 2026 and the levy of interest and penalty on demands made for the period before 25 July 2024 shall stand waived for all the assesses.
3.8 Where assessee filed writ petition challenging constitutional validity of section16(2)(c), since right to avail input tax credit was a conditional right, assessee could not be given benefit of input tax credit unless amount of tax collected from assesse had actually been paid to exchequer: High Court of Kerala
(Tirupati Balaji Traders vs. Union of India; 24/07/2024)
Input tax credit was not being allowed to assessee on ground that tax was not paid by supplier. Assessee could not be given benefit of input tax credit unless amount of tax collected from assessee had actually been paid to exchequer. Therefore, Writ petition of assessee was to be dismissed.
3.9 Time limit for furnishing return for month of September is to be treated as 30thNovember in each financial year with effect from 1-7-2017; assessees who had filed their returns for month of September on or before 30th November, their claim for ITC should be processed, if they are otherwise eligible for ITC: High Court of Kerala
(M.Trade Links vs. Union of India; 04/06/2024)
In initial years of GST regime, GSTR-2A was not available initially in financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. In order to resolve bona fide claims and mistakes, Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, dated 27-12-2022 and Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST, dated 17-7-2023 was issued. These circulars cover period from introduction of GST till section 16 (2) (aa) was introduced with effect from 1-1-2022. ITC can be availed by recipient for bonafide scenarios listed in those circulars. Earlier, date for furnishing return under section 39 was 30th September.
Legislature had effected amendment by Finance Act, 2022 and extended time for filing return for September to 30th November. Thus, if a person has furnished return for month of September till 30th November, his claim should also be considered and processed and should not be rejected if dealer did not furnish return for month of September on or before 20th October. This amendment being procedural has to be given retrospective effect. So far as challenge to constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) and section16(4) was concerned, same was to be rejected.
3.10 Significant development in the interpretation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws in India: Gauhati High Court
(National Plasto Moulding vs. State of Assam; 03/02/2024)
Multiple businesses and firms challenged the show cause notices issued under section 16(2)(c) & 16(2)(d), arguing that they unfairly penalized the purchasers for the tax defaults of their suppliers. According to these provisions, a purchasing dealer can claim ITC only if the supplier has deposited the tax with the government. The petitioners contended that this requirement was overly harsh and placed an unreasonable burden on them.
The core legal precedent for these cases was the Delhi High Court's decision in On Quest Merchandising India (P.)Ltd. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi. The Delhi High Court ruled that a purchasing dealer should not be penalized if the selling dealer fails to deposit the tax collected, as long as the purchasing dealer has acted in good faith and complied with all statutory requirements.
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
Comments