NOTIFICATIONS
Timelines for compliance or action by any authority, which is required to be done under provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, have been extended
Timelines for completion of compliance or action by any authority which has been prescribed under Section 171 of the CGST Act, due date of which falls between March 20, 2020 to November 29, 2020 and which has not been completed or complied with, have been extended to November 30, 2020.
Notification No. 65/2020-Central Tax dated September 01, 2020
Extension in due date to file GSTR-4 for the FY 2019-20
Due date to file GSTR-4 for the financial year 2019-20 has been extended to October 31, 2020.
Notification No.64/2020-Central Tax dated August 31, 2020
COURT RULINGS
SEZ unit, receiving credit distributed by an ISD unit is entitled to claim refund of IGST lying in electronic credit ledger
Rule 89 of the CGST Rules provides for the procedure of refund of tax, interest, penalty and fee. It further prescribes that in respect of supplies to SEZ, the refund claim shall be filed by the supplier. However, the contention of the department that SEZ unit, not being a supplier, is not entitled to claim refund of IGST (distributed by its ISD unit) lying in credit ledger, is not sustainable as the ISD is an office of the supplier which receives tax invoices issued under section 31 towards the receipt of input services and issues a prescribed document for the purposes of distributing credit. Therefore, it is not possible for a supplier to claim refund of input tax credit where such credit has been distributed by ISD. Hence, department is directed to process the refund claim filed by the SEZ unit.
M/s Britannia Industries Limited v. Union of India (Gujarat HC)
Rejection of appeal filed belatedly, due to non-availability of electronic copy of order passed by Adjudicating authority, is not correct
Where the appeal could not be filed within the timelines allowed under the law due to the adjudication order not being uploaded by the appropriate authority on the GST portal, the same should not be rejected on the grounds of being filed belatedly. It was held that even if physical copy of the order was handed over to the petitioner, the time period to file the appeal would start only when the order is uploaded on the portal.
Further also, as there is no provision or procedure prescribed to file appeal manually, the order is required to be uploaded online so that appeal can be filed electronically as per the mandate of the CGST Act. Hence, there cannot be construed any failure on the part of the petitioner to file the appeal within the prescribed timelines as the period of limitation shall commence only on the date when the order is uploaded on the GST portal by the Adjudicating authority.
Gujarat State Petronet Limited v. Union of India (Gujarat HC)
Effective opportunity of hearing should be given before passing of the assessment order
The assessing officer should wait till the end of the day when the case is fixed for hearing, before finalization of the assessment. Finalization of the assessment and passing of the order on the same day on which hearing was fixed would be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Order passed are quashed and set aside.
Urbanclap Technologies India Private Limited v. The State Tax officer (Madras HC)
Money can also be seized by the Officer authorized conducting the search under CGST Act
The expression ‘confiscation of any document or books or things’ used under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act has to be seen as a whole and definition clauses are the keys to unlock the intent of the law. At a conjoint reading of provisions contained under sections 2(17), 2(31), 2(75) and 67(2) makes it clear that money would be covered within the expression ‘things’ and can also be seized by the authorized officer. Hence, petition is dismissed.
Smt. Kanishka Matta v. Union of India (Madhya Pradesh HC)
CESTAT RULINGS
Un-utilized credit of Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess lying in CENVAT credit balance as on June 30, 2017 should be allowed as cash refund
The credit earned by the appellant is a vested right in terms of the SC judgment in the case of Eicher Motors and will not extinguish with the change of law unless there is a specific provision to that effect. The GST law contains provisions of transitioning of credit and no specific provisions are there under the law which provide that such credit would lapse. Hence, the Assessee should be allowed cash refund for the same.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. The Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY
Ceiling on MEIS rewards on exports made during September 01, 2020 to December 31, 2020
Total rewards that may be granted to an IEC holder under ‘MEIS’ scheme shall be capped at INR 2 Crores per IEC on exports made during the period September 01, 2020 to December 31, 2020. The aforesaid ceiling may be subjected to further downward revision to ensure that total claim under the scheme for the said period does not exceed the allocation prescribed by the Government i.e. INR 5000 Crores. Also, benefits under MEIS shall not be available on exports made from January 01, 2021 and onwards.
DGFT Notification 30/2015-2020 dated September 01, 2020
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of relevant provisions and as per the information existing at the time of the preparation. Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided. Neither Author nor Yes GST (collectively referred as we) assume no responsibility thereof. The user of the information agrees that the information is not a professional advice and is subject to change without notice. We shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the use of the information in any circumstances.
