GST Update
Weekly Update
16.05.2020
Background
• This Presentation covers the GST changes /
observations/ press releases/ Tweet FAQs/ Sectoral
FAQs released by CBEC since the last update on
02.05.2020. No update was released on 09.05.2020.
It supplements the earlier GST Updates.
• This presentation is based on CGST Act/Rules/
Notifications, except the provisions related solely to
SGST provisions. Similar parallel provisions in State
Laws may be referred to as required.
Furnishing of GSTR 3B through EVC and SMS
• Notification No. 38/2020 – Central Tax dated 5
th May 2020
• Furnishing of GSTR 3B through EVC: From 21st April 2020 to
30th June 2020, Companies can furnish the return under
section 39 in GSTR 3B through electronic verification code
(EVC) without using DSC.
• Manner of furnishing of return by short messaging service
facility: NIL return under section 39 in GSTR 3B can be filled
through short messaging service (SMS). For this, Rule 67A
inserted in CGST Rules, 2017 ( This will come into effect from a
date to be notified later)
• Explanation. - For the purpose of this rule, a Nil return shall
mean a return under section 39 for a tax period that has nil or
no entry in all the Tables in FORM GSTR-3B.
• Return Filing Form GSTR-3B, through EVC (New Functionality )
• The taxpayers who are required to mandatorily use DSC to file
Form GSTR-3B, now have an option to file it using EVC.
• This is applicable to for all categories of Companies (including
Limited Liability Partnerships and PSUs), registered under
Companies Act, 2013.
• This option is available for returns filed in Form GSTR-3B
during the period starting from 21-04-2020 to 30-06-2020.
Extension of E-Way Bill due to COVID 2019
• Notification No. 40/2020 – Central Tax dated 5th May 2020
• Seeks to extend the validity of e-way bills till 31.05.2020 for
those e-way bills which expire during the period from
20.03.2020 to 15.04.2020 and generated till 24.03.2020
• E-way bill issued on or before 24th March and whose validity
were expiring between 20th March to 15th April, shall now be
valid till 31st May 2020.
Extension of due date for returns
• Notification No. 41/2020 – Central Tax dated 5th May 2020
• GST Annual return for 2018-19: Last date for filing GST annual
return specified under section 44 of CGST Act read with rule
80 of the CGST Rules for 2018-19 has been extended till 30th
Sept 2020.
• Notification No. 42/2020 – Central Tax dated 5
th May 2020
• Extends the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-3B returns for
the taxpayers registered in Ladakh, for the months of -
• November 2019 to February 2020 – 24th March 2020
• November 2019 to December 2019 – 24th March 2020
• January 2020 to March 2020 - 20th May 2020
Amendment to Section 140- Transition Provisions
• Notification No. 43/2020 – Central Tax dated 16th May 2020 (
Amendment to section 140 of CGST Act come into force w.e.f
16th May 2020)
• Section 140 of the CGST Act amended retrospectively w.e.f
01.07.2017, to prescribe the manner and time limit for taking
transitional credit
• Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) of sec. 140 are
amended retrospectively from 1st July 2017 to enable the
government to provide by rules the time limits to file TRAN-1
and for other compliances
CIRP under the IBC, 2016
• Notification No. 39/2020 – Central Tax dated 5th May 2020 (
Amends the Notn No. 11/2020- Central Tax dated 21st March,
2020)
• Time limit for registration extended due to covid by substituting
the following to para 2-
• Registration.- The said class of persons shall, with effect from
the date of appointment of IRP / RP, be treated as a distinct
person of the corporate debtor, and shall be liable to take a
new registration (hereinafter referred to as the new
registration)in each of the States or Union territories where the
corporate debtor was registered earlier, within thirty days of
the appointment of the IRP/RP or by 30th June, 2020,
whichever is later
Clarifications
• Circular No. 138/08/2020-GST dated 6th May 2020
• Extension of time limit in registration of IRP/CIRP due to
lockdown: Vide notification No. 39/2020- Central Tax, dated
05.05.2020, the time limit required for obtaining registration
by the IRP/RP in terms of special procedure prescribed vide
notification No. 11/2020 – Central Tax dated 21.03.2020 has
been extended. Accordingly, IRP/RP shall now be required to
obtain registration within thirty days of the appointment of
the IRP/RP or by 30th June 2020, whicheveris later.
• The notification No. 11/2020– Central Tax dated 21.03.2020 was issued
to devise a special procedure to overcome the requirement of
sequential filing of FORM GSTR-3B under GST and to align it with the
provisions of the IBC Act, 2016. The said notification has been amended
vide notification No. 39/2020 - Central Tax, dated 05.05.2020 so as to
specifically provide that corporate debtors who have not defaulted in
furnishing the return under GST would not be required to obtain a
separate registration with effect from the date of appointment of
IRP/RP
• Accordingly, it is clarified that IRP/RP would not be required to take a
fresh registration in those cases where statements in FORM GSTR-1
under section 37 and returns in FORM GSTR-3B under section 39 of the
CGST Act, for all the tax periods prior to the appointment of IRP/RP,
have been furnished under the registration of Corporate Debtor (earlier
GSTIN).
• In cases where the RP is not the same as IRP, or in cases where a different
IRP/RP is appointed midway during the insolvency process, the change in the
GST system may be carried out by an amendment in the registration form.
Changing the authorized signatory is a non- core amendment and does not
require approval of tax officer. However, if the previous authorized signatory
does not share the credentials with his successor, then the newly appointed
person can get his details added through the Jurisdictional authority as
Primary authorized signatory.
• The new registration by IRP/RP shall be required only once, and in case of any
change in IRP/RP after initial appointment under IBC, it would be deemed to
be change of authorized signatory and it would not be considered as a distinct
person on every such change after initial appointment. Accordingly, it is
clarified that such a change would need only change of authorized signatory
which can be done by the authorized signatory of the Company who can add
IRP /RP as new authorized signatory or failing that it can be added by the
concerned jurisdictional officer on request by IRP/RP.
• Vide notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020, time limit
for compliance of any action by any person which falls during the
period from 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 has been extended up to
30.06.2020, where completion or compliance of such action has not
beenmade within such time.
• Notification no. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017 was
issued under powers conferred by section 11 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The exemption provided in notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated
03.04.2020 is applicable forsection 11 as well.
• Accordingly, it is clarified that the said requirement of exporting the
goods by the merchant exporter within 90 days from the date of issue
of tax invoice by the registered supplier gets extended to 30th June
2020, provided the completion of such 90 days period falls within
20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020.
• Time limit for compliance of any action by any person which falls
during the period from 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 has been
extended up to 30.06.2020 where completion or compliance of
such action has not been made within such time. Accordingly, it is
clarified that the due date of furnishing of FORM GST ITC-04 for
the quarter ending March, 2020 stands extended up to
30.06.2020
Legal Updates
Time Limit prescribed u/r 117 of CGST Rules valid and constitutional
Case of Shree Motors Vs Union of India reported in 2020-TIOL924-HC-Raj-GST
Facts
Writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by
non filing of Form GST TRAN-1 at common portal allegedly
because of various system error/technical glitches at the portal
throughout the period during which the Form was available,
which resulted in denial of transitional CENVAT credit.
Petitioners case was that that the provisions of Section 140 of
the CGST Act is a complete Code in itself and the same does not
provide for eligibility subject to any further conditions.
The Hon’ble High Court held
Petitioners in the earlier round of litigation initially challenged
the validity of provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule
117 of the CGST Rules, however, in view of the fact that validity
was upheld, the matter was transmitted to the Single Judge who
by order dated 21.11.2019 disposed of the writ petitions by
permitting the petitioners to submit online Form GST Tran-1
subject to furnishing a proof that they had tried to upload Form
GST Tran-1 prior to 27.12.2017 and such attempt failed due to
technical glitches on the common portal; that the GST Council
was required to issue their requisite certificate within a period of 15 days if the petitioners' assertion was found correct and in
case the petitioners were not entitled for the requisite, the
Council was required to pass an order giving reasons. GST
Council referred to the ITGRC meeting, wherein, cases of the
petitioners were considered and indicated that their cases fell in
B-1 category and B-1 category has been described as 'as per GST
system log, there are no evidences of error or submission/filing
of Tran-1' - In view of the fact that this Court while deciding the
writ petitions filed by the petitioners had laid down the specific
parameters for grant of relief to the petitioners and it has been
found by the respondents as a fact that there were no evidences of error or submission/filing of Form GST Tran-1 by the
petitioners, the petitioners apparently are bound by the said
outcome and, as such, are not entitled to any relief. The theory
of vested rights and the implication of limitation on the said
aspect of vested right has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. (2002-TIOL-64-SC-CX),
wherein, while considering the proviso II to Rule 57G of the Act
of 1944 it was laid down that by providing limitation, the statute
has not taken away any of the vested rights, which accrue to the
manufacturers and what is restricted is the time, within which,
the manufacturer has to enforce that right and, therefore, once the provisions of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, which prescribe
limitation has been upheld, the plea raised pertaining to the
denial of vested right on account of petitioners failing to
submit/file Form GST Tran-1 in time cannot be countenanced -
no case for interference as sought by the petitioners is made out
in the present writ petitions. The petitions were dismissed.
Tax Dues not barred by Insolvency Proceedings under IBC
Case of Electrosteel Steels Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand reported
in
2020-TIOL-915-HC-Jharkhand
Facts
The assessee company had challenged the garnishee order
issued u/s 46 of the JVAT Act, asking the respondent Bank to pay
into the Government Treasury, the sum of Rs.37,41,41,602/-, on
account of tax / penalty due under the JVAT Act, from the
assessee company, who failed to deposit the taxes for the period
from 2011-12 & 2012-13, from the Bank account of the
Company. The assessee Company had also challenged the letter
dated 22.11.2009, issued by the State Tax Officer, Bokaro to the Respondent Bank, to deposit the amount of Rs.75,57,000/- by
way of demand draft in favour of the Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Bokaro in view of the fact that pursuant to
the garnishee order, the respondent Bank had furnished the
information that only the amount of Rs.75,57,000/- was
available in the assessee's account. The assessee claimed that
the amount, could no more be realised by the State Government
from the Company, in view of the fact that the State Bank of
India had filed a Company Petition, before the NCLT under the IB
Code, which was admitted by the NCLT and the interim
resolution professional was appointed. The resolution plan was made and approved. Upon approval of the Resolution Plan, M/s.
Vedanta Limited took over the management of the assessee
Company. According to the assessee, since no claim was made by
the State Government as regards the tax liability in the corporate
insolvency resolution process, the claim of the Government was
now barred u/s 31 of the IB Code.
Decision of the Hon’ble High Court
Whether once resolution plan is approved, tax liability of
Company which is not claimed by the State Government during
insolvency resolution process, is completely barred under
Section 31 of the IB Code - NO
Whether if State Government has never been involved in
corporate insolvency resolution process, such plan cannot be a
binding on it and it can claim outstanding tax liabilities - YES
Hon’ble SC time barring judgment binding on all
• Hon’ble AP High Court; Writ Petition No. 8425/ 2020 in M/s
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd
• Request for adjournment for PH owing to pandemic situation
due to COVID 2019 denied
• Decision of High Court- Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court is binding on all citizens/ tribunals/ courts of the
country, including those exercising quasi judicial functions
• Directs the respondent to give two weeks notice after the
central govt relaxes the lockdown in India
Any ISSUES/ queries?
• https://cbec-gst.gov.in/
• CBEC MITRA HELPDESK
• 1800 1200 232
• cbecmitra.helpdesk@icegate.gov.in
• GSTN Help Desk
• https://selfservice.gstsystem.in/
- Grievance redressal
portal
• Help Desk Number: 0120-4888999
Any ISSUES/ queries?
• Twitter Handles
• For General Questions
• https://twitter.com/askGST_GoI
• For technology related issues
• https://twitter.com/askGSTech
• NACIN twitter
• https://twitter.com/NACIN_OFFICIAL
THANK YOU
Content Credit: https://www.cbic.gov.in/
Comments
Post a Comment