Knowledge Base

In line with recommendations provided during 53rd GST Council Meeting, CBIC has issued clarification vide Circular No. 211/5/2024-GST date 26th June, 2024 regarding time limit under Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 to claim Input Tax Credit of GST paid under reverse charge on inward supplies received from unregistered person. 1. Issue under Consideration Date […]

The most awaited 53rd GST Council meeting has held on June 22, 2024 and was chaired by the Hon’ble Finance Minister. Ths GST Council meeting aimed to enhance trade, simplify business operations, and enhance GST compliance. The GST Council has recommended a series of amendments and clarifications including: The GST Council recommendation belonged to following […]

Held by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala In the matter of M/s M.TRADE LINKS Vs Union of India (WP(C) NO. 31559 OF 2019) Summary: The Petitioner was denied the Input Tax Credit despite the availability of valid tax invoice, proof of payment of value and receipt of goods. In some cases, ITC was disallowed as […]

Summary: The Petitioner was engaged in manufacturing and sale of Aluminum Casting and Machinery Parts. The petitioner claimed ITC on inward supplies received from the supplier. During the conduct of the survey at the location of the supplier, it was found that the suppliers were non-existent and bogus firms. Therefore, corresponding ITC was disallowed to […]

The GST Council has met for the first time post election and the entire industry was keeping an eye on this meeting with high expectations. The council meeting discussed various crucial issues and made certain recommendations to resolve legal and technical issues being faced by the industry. The GST Council recommended about: This article discusses […]

Due date of issuance of Assessment order under Section 73 has lapsed for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 on 31st December, 2023 and 30th April, 2024 respectively. In the cases where demand is raised through DRC-07, the taxpayer may either prefer an appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) or opt to pay tax determined through demand order. As per Section 78 of CGST Act, the taxpayer is given a time period of 3 months to make payment of an amount determined to be payable by any order under GST.

The Applicant is constructing Industrial buildings which are to be rented out as godowns for commercial purposes. The Applicant is seeking advance ruling on the question that whether the Applicant is entitled to claim ITC on inward supply of goods or services used for construction of such godowns. The Applicant contended that Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act is not applicable in the given case as the godowns are not to be used for furtherance of business. Rather, such godowns themselve are a source of income. Further, as per Article 14 of Constitution of India, ITC can’t be denied on ground of “equal protection of law”.

The applicant is an authorised agent of Mercedes Benz India and is engaged in supply of car, spare parts and services. The applicant purchases demo cars from MB India and such cars are kept for demonstration and test drive purposes for a specific period of time. After completion of specified cars, such demo cars are purchased by the applicant from MB India and sold further to the end customer. Loss on sale of such demo cars, if any, is reimbursed by the MB india to the applicant.

The Petitioner is an employee of a Company M/s MLIPL, which is appointed as steamer agent of M/s Maersk. The petitioner was assisting M/s MLIPL against GST Compliance and was holding power of attorney to represent before tax authority on behalf of M/s Maersk. During the course of investigation, it was alleged that M/s Maersk has availed ineligible ITC and has made wrongful distribution of ITC. A SCN was issued to the petitioner asking to pay INR 1561 Crores equivalent to the tax alleged to be evaded by M/s. Maersk. Notice was issued under section 74 of CGST Act invoking Section 122(1A) and section 137 of CGST Act.

The Hon’ble High Court contended that as GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled therefore, the petitioner has little reasons to monitor the GST portal. As per principle of natural justice, the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration.