Article

CGST Rule 96(10) and its inadvertent consequences

By Nitum Jain

There is no doubt that the GST regime has not seen a rule so debated as Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The said rule has seen conflicting interpretations, several retrospective amendments and multiple challenges before various High Courts. The article in this issue of Tax Amicus discusses few shortcomings which persist in Rule 96(10). Deliberating on the interpretation of the word ‘person’ used in the said rule, it attempts to seek answer to the question as to whether the other registrations of a company, which availed benefit of Advance authorisaiton/EOU scheme in one registration, would become ineligible to claim refund of IGST paid on exports. The author discusses elaborately both the propositions – multiple registrations, and multiple units in same registration. The article proposes a system of having one-to-one correlation between the inputs on which benefits have been availed and the exports. According to the author, even before the recently proposed amendment in Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the option to export under LUT/ bond and claiming refund of unutilized credit remains a more popular option...

Goods & Services Tax (GST)

Notifications and Circulars

• Suspension/Cancellation of GST registration – CBIC notifies SOPs for CGST Rule 21A(2A)
• J&K – 100% GST linked incentive to be provided under New Central Sector Scheme for Industrial Development of Union Territory of J&K

Ratio decidendi

• E-way bill need not be cancelled if transportation of goods not takes place within 24 hours of its generation – Allahabad High Court
• Penalty equivalent to tax not imposable for lapses in e-way bill of tax-paid goods – Tripura High Court
• No detention on mere suspicion of mis-classification of goods – Kerala High Court
• Arrest – Clubbing of offences of four different entities – Person committing offence – Bombay High Court
• ITC not deniable if GSTR-3B and not TRAN-1 filed – Jammu & Kashmir High Court
• ITC not available on construction of jetties as not covered under ‘plant and machinery’ – AAR Gujarat
• No ITC on sewage treatment plant, fire-fighting system, cable, etc. – AAR Haryana
• Charges recovered by Head Office from Branch Office in lieu of maintenance services qualify as supply – AAR Haryana
• Interest for delay in delivery covered under ‘toleration of an act’ – AAR Haryana
• UK VAT – Free education service where funding provided by government, is supply for consideration – United Kingdom’s Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

Customs

Notifications and Circulars

• Job work and out-sourcing for manufacture on job work allowed on goods imported under IGCR Rules, 2017
• IGST refund in case of mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B – Interim solution extended for shipping bills filed between 1 April 2019 till 31 March 2021
• IGST refund in case of invoice mismatch – Officer interface available on payment of fees
• Coal Import Monitoring System postponed to 1 April 2021
• Food Import Entry Points – General Notes in Import Policy revised
• IEC provisions under Chapters 1 and 2 of Foreign Trade Policy revised
• B-17 bond – Proprietor of EOU when cannot provide surety
• SEZ – Inspection of duty-free goods on de-bonding and filing of B/E on DTA clearance of imported goods

Ratio decidendi

• Correction of mistake or error in self-assessed bill of entry is permissible – Bombay High Court
• Exemption – Words ‘required to manufacture’ not contemplate actual use – Karnataka High Court
• Exemption – Words ‘required to manufacture’ not contemplate actual use – Karnataka High Court
• Penalty under Section 114A – Word ‘or’ cannot be interpreted as ‘and’ – Karnataka High Court
• Demurrage charges not payable when goods seized/detained by Customs authorities – Madras High Court
• Refund of light dues paid twice due to system error not barred by limitation – Kerala High Court
• Appeal against provisional assessment order is not premature – CESTAT Chennai
• Seizure – Waiver of SCN by importer is no ground for not following procedure under Section 110 – CESTAT Mumbai

Central Excise, Service Tax & VAT

Ratio decidendi

• Rajasthan Entry Tax – Single transaction is covered under definition of ‘casual trader’ – Supreme Court
• CERA cannot audit a private entity – Bombay High Court
• Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme - Accounting methodology cannot stand in way of substantive relief – Madras High Court
• Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme – Statement by Director during enquiry is admission of liability – Bombay High Court