Affluence GST Newsletter- September 2024

GST UPDATES September 2024 401 | 601, Opulence Building, Above Bank of Baroda, Road No. 6, Near Santacruz Station, Santacruz East, Mumbai: 400055. Contact No.: 8591167727 Email: connect@affluence.net.in Web: www. affluence.net.in OUR SCOPE OF SERVICES Due Diligence | ESOP | RBI / FEMA Compliance | NBFC Registration and Compliances | Foreign Entities | Fintech | Secretarial Compliances | SEBI Registration and Compliances | Stressed Asset Resolution under IBC |Initial Public Offer | Direct Tax | Indirect Tax | Accounts Outsourcing | Risk Advisory | Startup and MSME Advisory Assurance | Directors Due Diligence

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED CONTENTS SECTION A News & Updates 1.Advisory on RCM Statement dated 23 August 2024 2.Summary of tax applicability on renting of commercial and residential property 3.Effective date of relevant provision of Finance (No. 02) Act SECTION B Summary of Case Laws Case Laws: GST 1. Notice in lieu of ASMT-10 as per Section 61 of CGST Act Patna High Court 2. Adjudication initiated by State authority cannot be transferred to DGGI Punjab and Haryana High Court 3. Circular issued by Central authority to be specifically accepted by State Orissa High Court 4. Verification of additional place of business for revocation of registration Delhi High Court 5. Challenge to Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(2)(d) of CGST Act Gauhati High Court 6. Failure to provide sufficient evidence to proving movement of goods - Allahabad High Court 7. ITC cannot be blocked more than the credit balance in ECL Delhi High court 8. Evidence for proving receipt of goods Madras High Court 9. Interpretation the term as is where is basis Gujarat High Court 10.Refund of tax in case coercion is not proved Delhi High Court 11.Grounds for acceptance of review petition Madhya Pradesh High Court Page | 2

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED SECTION B Summary of Case Laws Case Laws: Service Tax 1. Tax cannot be demanded under RCM if service provider has paid tax CESTAT AHNEDABAD 2. Availment of CENVAT credit by insurance company pertaining to invoice issued by motor dealer - CESTAT CHENNAI 3. Substantive evidence proving receipt of goods CESTAT NEW DELHI Page | 3

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED SECTION A News & Updates Page | 4

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 1.Introduction of RCM Liability/ ITC statement A statement called RCM liability/ ITC statement has been introduced on GST portal. The same has been introduced with a motive of enhanced accuracy and transparency by capturing the RCM liability figures depicted in Table 3.1(d) of GSTR-3B and corresponding ITC claimed in Table 4A(2) and 4A(3) of GSTR-3B. The said statement is applicable from August 2024 for monthly return filers and from July to September 2024 quarter for quarterly return filers. Reporting of RCM ITC balances: Particulars To report negative or positive value Excess RCM liability paid in GSTR 3B however ITC has not been availed The said positive value of ITC to be reported as Opening balance Excess RCM ITC availed in GSTR 3B however corresponding tax has not been paid Negative value of ITC is to be reported as Opening balance Reclaimed RCM ITC which was reversed in earlier tax period in table 4(B)(2) of Form GSTR3B The said ITC can be reclaimed by reporting in Table 4A(5) of GSTR-3B. Since the same cannot be claimed through Table 4(A)2 and Table 4(A)3, it shall not form part of this statement. Steps for reporting the RCM ITC balances: The taxpayers can report the opening balance in the statement by following below navigation: Login >> Report RCM ITC Opening Balance or Services >> Ledger >> RCM Liability/ITC Statement >> Report RCM ITC Opening Balance. The timeline to declare the opening balance on portal is 30 October 2024. Further, taxpayer will be provided 3 opportunities to rectify any error in reporting the opening balance till 30 November 2024. Update Page | 5

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 2.Summary of RCM applicability on renting of commercial and residential property In the recently held 54th GST Council meeting, it recommended to bring renting of commercial property by unregistered person to a registered person under RCM. In light of the same, we have summarized the taxability in case of renting of residential or commercial property as below: Nature of property Tax Sr. No Usage Supplier Recipient Taxability applicability Reverse charge 1 Residential Residential Registered Registered Taxable 2 Residential Residential Registered Unregistered Exempt - Reverse charge 3 Residential Residential Unregistered Registered Taxable 4 Residential Residential Unregistered Unregistered Exempt - Reverse charge 5 Residential Commercial Registered Registered Taxable Forward charge 7 Residential Commercial Registered Unregistered Taxable Reverse charge 6 Residential Commercial Unregistered Registered Taxable 8 Residential Commercial Unregistered Unregistered Exempt - Forward charge 9 Commercial Commercial Registered Registered Taxable Forward charge 10 Commercial Commercial Registered Unregistered Taxable Reverse charge 11 Commercial Commercial Unregistered Registered Taxable 12 Commercial Commercial Unregistered Unregistered Exempt - Page | 6

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 3.Notification No.17/2024 dated 27 September 2024 In light of Notification No. 17/2024- Central Tax dated 27 September 2024, CBIC has notified the date from which the provisions of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 shall be effective. A gist of key provisions of Finance Act and the corresponding provisions in CGST Act along with the effective date is summarized as below: Relevant Section of Finance (No. 2) of 2024 Relevant Section as per CGST Act Particulars Effective date Section 118 Section 16(5) Section 16(6) Sec 16(5): Timeline for availing the ITC for the period July 2017 to March 2018, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 is 30 November 2021 27/09/2024 & Sec 16(6):TimeLine for availing the ITC in case of cancellation of supplier's registration and subsequent revocation Section 142 Section 109 Empowering adjudicate/examine the Anti Profiteering matter GSTAT Principal Bench to 27/09/2024 Section148 Section Sunset clause for Anti profiteering provisions 27/09/2024 171 Section 150 NA No refund in case of reversal of ITC or tax paid in light of violation of Section 16(4) provisions 27/09/2024 Section 116 Section 11A Insertion of Section 11A: Power not to recover GST not levied or short paid as a result of general practise 01/11/2024 Section 117 Section 13(3) Time of supply provisions in case where GST is payable under reverse charge 01/11/2024 Section 121 Section 30 Insertion of 2nd proviso providing that conditions or restriction for revocation of cancellation of registration shall be prescribed 01/11/2024 Section 122 Section 31(3)(f) Amendment in clause (f): Period for issuance of self- invoice shall be prescribed. Also, explanation inserted to clarify that supplier for the purpose of this clause shall include a person registered for deduction of TDS 01/11/2024 Page | 7

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED Section 135 Section 70 Insertion of sub-section 1A which provides for authorised person to appear for summons proceeding, as the officer may direct 01/11/2024 Section 136 Section 73 Amendment providing that the adjudication under this section can be carried out for the period upto FY 2023- 24 01/11/2024 Section 137 Section 74 Amendment providing that the adjudication under this section can be carried out for the period upto FY 2023- 24 01/11/2024 Section 138 Section 74A Insertion of new section 74A, for determination of tax, interest and penalty for the period FY 2024-25 onwards, covering the grounds of both Section 73 and Section 74 01/11/2024 Section 143 Section 112 Extending the time limit for filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and reducing the pre-deposit percentage to 10% in case of appeal before Tribunal 01/11/2024 Section 146 Section 128A Waiver of interest or penalty or both pertaining to demands raised under Section 73 for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2020 01/11/2024 Section 149 Schedule III Addition to Schedule III: Apportionment of co- insurance premium and ceding commission or reinsurance commission deducted by insurer from reinsurance premium 01/11/2024 Update Page | 8

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED SECTION B Case Laws (GST) Page | 9

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 1.M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2024(9) TMI 160 PATNA HIGH COURT] The captioned petition is filed on the ground that the impugned SCN issued is illegal since the same is not in compliance with provisions of GST Act. Petitioner made a reference to Section 61 of CGST Act read with Rule 99 of Bihar GST Rules, stating that Section 61, speaks of scrutiny of returns after which there is an obligation to inform the assessee about any discrepancy noticed, and call for the assessee s explanation. Sub-section (2) provides for the dropping of the proceeding if the explanation offered is accepted. In case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, then appropriate action could be taken under Sections 65 to 67 or Section 73 or 74. Rule 99 of the Bihar GST Rules, 2017 mandates that when a return furnished by the registered person is selected for scrutiny, the Proper Officer should issue a notice to the said person in Form GST ASMT-10 under the provisions of Section 61 with reference to the information available with the Proper Officer and details of discrepancy noticed. HC made an observation upon perusal of Annexure to SCN, that a communication was sent to petitioner to clarify on the discrepancy noticed. While the same did not contain the heading as ASMT-10, from the language it appears to be identical to Form ASMT-10. In communication sent to petitioner, it was pointed out that there is a discrepancy insofar as the ITC declared in the annual return not having been reconciled with the financial statement (Table 14T of Form 9C). To said observation, petitioner filed a reply stating that the reporting of details in Table 14T of Form GSTR- 9C was optional and the unreconciled ITC appearing in Column T is an auto-populated figure. HC with respect to said response stated that if the petitioner was aware of the fact that the figure appearing in Table 14T is optional, then it is incumbent upon him to provide an explanation for the same rather than taking a contention that Table 14 was optional. In light of the above, HC held that there is no reason to entertain the writ petition on the grounds of illegality of SCN. A communication was issued seeking an explanation for the discrepancy, to which the petitioner filed a response and the same was found to be unsatisfactory. Since SCN has already been issued, petitioner is entitled to appear and raise the objections. Writ petition has been dismissed. Judgment 2.M/S STALWART ALLOYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2024(8) TMI 1458 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] In this case, an enquiry was initiated by State tax department with regard to wrongful availment of ITC for a particular period. Consequently, a notice under section 74 of CGST Act was issued. Further, DGGI also initiated the proceedings on the same ground for another period. The State tax officer since initially requestioned the details/documents including for the period for which DGGI initiated the proceeding, the same were transferred to DGGI authorities. Also, the proceedings for subsequent period were transferred by State officer to DGGI authorities. Page | 10

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the captioned writ petition by contending that the same is in violation of Section 6(2)(B) of CGST Act. Petitioner argued that the officer who has initiated the proceedings under Section 74 i.e. State Authorities is the proper officer in terms of Section 6(2)(B) of CGST Act. Therefore, neither the records can be transferred to DGGI office nor DGGI usurp the power of the officer under SGST Act i.e. he being the proper officer. HC in the said case made an observation that the power of Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest as provided under Chapter XIV of CGST Act, 2017 reflects that the power which is being exercised by the proper officer in terms of Sections 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the CGST Act are purely judicial in nature. In terms of Section 70 (2) of the HGST Act, every inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings. Issuance of show cause notice is the point of commencement of any legal proceedings. Thus, once a proper officer has initiated any proceedings as per Section 6 (2) (B) of the Act, on a subject matter, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter. HC held that the proper officer who has initiated proceedings in the present case i.e. the State Tax Officer are empowered to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. The scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no where provides for transferring the proceedings from one proper officer to another. On the other hand, it debars the same. In the circumstances, neither any authority has the power to transfer the case from its own jurisdiction to another nor any other authority can direct for transferring an investigation/ proceeding already undergoing before the proper officer in terms of Section 6 (2) (B) of the Act. Further HC held that the word subject matter used in Section 6 (2) (B) of the Act would mean the nature of proceedings . In captioned case, it would mean the proceedings initiated for wrongful availment of input tax credit by fraudulent means. Thus, if the State has already initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Section 74 of the Act for the period upto 22.07.2019, for the same subject matter, the DGGI cannot be allowed to initiate proceedings for the availment of input tax credit by fraudulent means for the period from 28.07.2019 to 20.01.2022. Such action, if allowed, would be contrary to the provisions contained in Section 6 (2) (B) of the Act. Also, HC stated that in a federal structure, both the Central Government and the State authorities would be required to act in tandem and not to operate in exclusion with one another. The investigation which may be conducted would, therefore, have to be based on one another and once the State or the Central authority has initiated proceedings, the other authority, State or the Central would act in support of the same and provide all necessary inputs so that the proceedings may reach to a final conclusion and achieve its results. Judgment Page | 11

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 3.M/S. ATULYA MINERALS VERSUS COMMISIONER OF STATE TAX, CUTTAK AND ANOTHER [2024(8) TMI 1381 ORISSA HIGH COURT] In this case, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for seeking to quash the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State tax blocking ITC in terms of Rule 86A of Orissa GST Rules. Petitioner argued that the impugned Order cannot sustain in eyes of law since the officer has no jurisdiction to pass such Order. In order to support this argument, petitioner relied upon circular dated 02/11/2021 wherein the CBIC has issued guidelines for disallowing debit of electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of CGST Rules. The said circular also prescribes the threshold limit for blocking the ITC qua the officer. HC held that the captioned argument of petitioner shall not sustain since the circular referred above has not been accepted by State Government. The circular dated 02/11/2021 is only applicable to Central authorities. Therefore, the captioned Order passed by Deputy Commissioner State tax blocking the ITC is within the power granted under Rule 86A(1) of OGST Rules. Judgment 4.M/S. SHIVOY ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH AND ORS. [2024 (7) TMI 1296 - DELHI HIGH COURT] The captioned case deals with cancellation of registration based on the allegation that upon verification of principal place of business, the petitioner found to be non-existent. Petitioner filed an application for revocation of GST registration on the ground that petitioner was operating from the additional place of business as reflecting in GST registration, however the same was not inspected. Honourable HC held that the petitioner cannot be denied registration solely on the ground that it failed to rectify the address of principal place of business as the records clearly reflect the place of business from where petitioner carries on its business being the additional place of business as reflecting in its GST registration certificate. Judgment 5.NATIONAL PLASTO MOUDLING VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS [CASE NO.: WP(C)/2863/2022] In this case, batch of writ petitions were combined as they all were challenging the validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(2)(d) of CGST Act. The prima issue dealt in this case was whether the recipient be punished for the defaults made by the supplier in form of non-deposit of tax collected by him. Petitioner relied upon the judgement of Delhi High Court in case of Quest Merchandising India Private Limited vs Delhi Authorities 2017 [SCC Online Del 11286] wherein Page | 12

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED the similar issue was dealt. Honorable High Court accepted the submission of petitioner and upheld the view taken by Delhi High Court. Accordingly, it was held that in case of bonafide purchase transactions, the recipient cannot be punished. Further, HC instructed that department can take action non-bonafide purchase transactions. Judgment 6.M/S ANIL RICE MILL VERSUS STATE OF U.P AND 2 OTHERS [2024(8) TMI 904 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] The captioned petition was filed by the petitioner who is engaged in the business of reselling and purchase of Peanuts, Galla and Paddy. The petitioner received the show cause notice under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for wrong availment of input tax credit for the period of Jun 20 to Sep 20. A reply against the same was filed, however officer was not satisfied with the reply and passed the Order confirming a demand of INR. 20, 31,775/-and penalty of equal amount. The petitioner submitted that, the goods were purchased against the proper tax invoice and the payment was made through banking channel. If supplier has not reported such sale of goods in his returns and not deposited tax, the action cannot be taken against the recipient. Further, petitioner has cleared the bill, in which tax was charged and therefore benefit of ITC cannot be legally denied. Also, he submitted that Input tax credit under the GST regime is being brought with intention to avoid cascading effect and once the tax has been charged on the bill, which was paid by the petitioner through banking channel, the benefit of input tax credit cannot legally be denied. Petitioner claimed that since he has rightly discharged tax liability by paying the tax charged on the bills raised by selling dealer and if he defaults in depositing of the same, petitioner shall not be penalised for it. In case the ITC is recovered from him, it shall lead to double taxation which is not the spirit of GST regime. Reliance was also placed upon the judgement of M/s Juhi Alloys and M/s LGW Industries passed by this court. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that, if the petitioner intends to avail the ITC, he is duty bound to prove beyond any doubt and establish that actual transaction took place. Merely furnishing the details of tax invoices, e-way bills, GRs shall not suffice. The petitioner is required to provide vehicle number which were used for transportation of goods, payment of freight charged, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods and payment etc. He further submits that the petitioner was required to prove and establish beyond doubt the actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transportation by furnishing details as has already been stated. In the event such details are not furnished, the benefit of input tax credit cannot be accorded. HC made a reference to Section 16 & Section 74 of CGST Act and stated that in case of wrong availment of ITC the proceedings can be initiated against the recipient subject to putting up of notice to the supplier. In the present case since the petitioner has only brought on record the tax invoices, e-way bills, and proof of payment through banking channel. However, details such as payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, toll receipts and payment thereof has not been provided. Thus, in the absence of these documents, the actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transportation as well as transaction cannot be established. Further, GSTR-2A has not been brought on record. Page | 13

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED Therefore, the proceeding has rightly been initiated against the petitioner. Additionally, HC has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex court in case of State of Karnataka V/s M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading and held that primarily burden of proof for claiming the ITC is upon the recipient to furnish the details of supplier, vehicle number, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. to prove and establish the actual physical movement of the goods. Mere submission of tax invoice, e-way bill, GR or payment details is not sufficient. HC by dismissing the judgement referred by petitioner discussed the judgement of Patna HC in case of M/s Astha Enterprises, judgement of this Court in case of M/s Ramway Foods, and M/s Shiv Trading. Consequently, HC held that no inference is called in the Impugned Orders. Judgment 7.BEST CROP SCIENCE PVT.LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST COMMISSIONERATE & OTHERS [2024(9) TMI 1543 DELHI HIGH COURT] In this case, petition has been filed against the Order blocking ITC in terms of Rule 86A of CGST Rules to the extent the credit is blocked in excess of the ITC available in electronic credit ledger. Petitioner has submitted that Rule 86A of CGST Rules does not allow to block credit which is not available in ECL. From the plain reading of the provisions, it is clear that the power to block credit is limited to the ITC available in the ECL. However, revenue has countered the said argument by stating that the power as per Rule 86A of CGST Rules is not confined to the credit balance of ITC as available on the date of the Order under said Rule. Honorable HC in the said case has held as under: i.The right to avail and utilise ITC is a statutory right which accrues upon fulfilment of certain conditions. ii.Rule 86A is not a provision for recovery of tax or other dues. It enables the concerned authority to take temporary measures in order to protect the interest of revenue. ITC is a valuable resource available to a taxpayer for payment of taxes. Any denial of access of this resource is akin to denial of access to the assets. iii.An Order under Rule 86A is not in the nature of a condition to be complied by a taxpayer or a burden to be discharged by it. iv.There is similarity in the language of Section 83(1) of CGST Act which enables the Commissioner to provisionally attach assets of taxpayer for protecting the interest of revenue. The powers under Section 83(1) of CGST Act and Rule 86A of CGST Rule can be exercised only if the concerned authority has a reason to believe that the conditions stipulated in the respective provisions are satisfied. v.Provisions of Rule 86A of CGST Rules, are to be interpreted bearing in the mind: Page | 14

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED a)Utilisation of credit is a vested right which has been validly accrued b)Power under 86A is a drastic power and may have serious consequences vi.Rule 86A empowers the Commissioner, under defined circumstances, to restrict the taxpayer from accessing its valuable resource in form of ITC vii.If the legislative intent is not expressed by the language of the provisions enacted, the Court ought to follow the language of the statute. This is based on the principle that the intent of the legislature must be found in the language of the statutes enacted and not on the basis of any subjective notions of legislative intent viii.HC noted that the heading of Rule 86A of CGST Rules stipulates that an Order under Rule 86A(1) can be passed only if the Commissioner or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf has reasons to believe that the credit of ITC available in ECL has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible. Hence, in case there is no credit available in ECL, one of the necessary condition for passing an Order under Rule 86A(1) shall not be satisfied. Judgment 8.TVL. SRI SHANMUGA TRADERS, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. PECHIMUTU PERUMAL VERSUS TATE TAX OFFICER (ST)(FAC), CHENNAI [2024(9) TMI 393 MADRAS HIGH COURT] The issue involved in this case is availment of ITC based on the invoices of supplier whose registration has been cancelled suo moto with retrospective effect. In this case, HC has interpreted the condition prescribed in Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act for availing the ITC i.e. he has received the goods or services or both . HC held that the one who intends to avail the ITC are supposed to furnish the particulars such as vehicle movement details, lorry receipt and trip sheet along with proper examination. Judgment 9.J.K. PAPAD INDUSTRIES & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024(9) TMI 759 GUJARAT HIGH COURT] In this case, HC has interpreted the term as is where is basis commonly used in recent notification/circulars issued by CBIC. HC held that the said term would mean the position taken by the petitioner shall stands valid for the period prior to the amendment/clarification i.e. if he had considered a transaction to be exempt, the same shall not be disputed. Judgment 10.SH. TRILOK CHAND SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2024 (9) TMI 602 DELHI HIGH COURT] In this case petitioner claimed that it has deposited the tax under coercion and it had no outstanding tax liability. However, respondent did not agree to the same and stated that the same was paid voluntarily. Page | 15

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED HC observed that the tax was not paid during the raid or while the petitioner or any of his employees were in custody. With respect to petitioner contention that he was coerced to pay tax else his registration would have been cancelled, the petitioner could have availed remedies available at that point in time. HC held that it is not necessary to conduct an inquiry to find out whether the amount deposited by petitioner was under coercion or voluntarily. However, in case petitioner claims that it has deposited the tax in excess of his liability, the petitioner is not remedy less and can seek refund in accordance with law. Judgment 11.M/S ELORA TOBACOO COMPANY LTD. THROUGHT ITS DIRECTOR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2024 (9) TMI 379 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] In this case, HC has discussed the premise for accepting the review petition. HC held that a review petition is maintainable on following grounds: a.Discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; b.Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or c.For any other sufficient reason d.Further, HC held that the under the garb of filing a review petition, one cannot be allowed to repeat old and overruled arguments in order to reopen the conclusions arrived in a judgement. Power of review shall not be confused with appellate power since the later enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate court. Judgment Page | 16

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED SECTION B Case Laws (SERVICE TAX) Page | 17

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 1.SHAH FOODS LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T.-AHMEDABAD-III [2024 (8) TMI 1405 CESTAT AHMEDABAD] The facts of the case is that while the appellant was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge but the same was discharged by service provider. Tribunal held that it is a settled position that once the service provider discharged the service tax where the service recipient was liable to pay the service tax, demand of service tax on the same service from the service recipient shall not sustain. The rationale behind the same is that the particular service which already suffered the service tax cannot be suffer the service tax twice on the same service. Judgment 2.M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OFGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE [2024 (8) TMI 92 - CESTAT CHENNAI] iThe appellant here, is a company engaged in providing General Insurances in the nature of Motor, Health, Personal Accident and Fire and Burglary insurance services and miscellaneous policies. They have centralized registration, and are registered for payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism on commissions paid to insurance agents, etc. iiUpon intelligence gathered by DGCEI, Chennai it was found that the appellant is wrongly availing CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices issued by dealers of Motor Vehicles containing description of services which were never actually provided by the automobile dealers to the appellant. iiiIt is noted that the dealers of motor vehicles not being Agents / Brokers / Intermediaries of the Insurance companies are neither permitted to do insurance business nor are they permitted to receive commission. ivAs the dealers / manufacturers are not permitted to do insurance business (as per Insurance Act and IRDA Regulations i.e. Section 40 of Insurance Act 1938 and Section 14 of IRDA Act, 1999) and not permitted to receive commission, the invoices are raised describing the services as Data processing, and Policy servicing related activities . The appellant pays commission to the dealers for soliciting their insurance business. vThe investigations by DGCEI concluded that no actual services have been provided to the appellant and these invoices are raised only to pass over the insurance commission to the dealers in the disguise of providing services. viThe dealers pay service tax on the amount collected from the appellant as per the invoices and the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by them. Thus, the SCN was issued to the appellant alleging that the credit availed on such services is ineligible. In the said regard, Member Judicial took the following view: AWhether the appellant was eligible to avail credit of Service tax paid by them on the invoices issued by automobile dealers. The importance of cross examination of statement and the Page | 18

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED opportunity to be provided for the same has been emphasised. It is observed that the department has opted to retain the tax collected but has sought to deny the credit to the appellant without questioning the assessment of the dealers. With the allegation that no services have been provided, department is denying the legality of tax paid. Also, it is observed that department has not initiated any proceedings against the service provider who has collected the tax and paid it to Government. Further, the decision view taken in the case of Cholamandalam MSGeneral Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 24 - CESTAT CHENNAI], Modular Auto Ltd. [2018 (8) TMI 1691 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs CCE, Mumbai Central [2023 (2) TMI 1093 - CESTAT MUMBAI]; was upheld. In light of the same, Honourable member held that the denial of credit cannot be justified. BThe computer generated invoices were not signed: In view of the second proviso to the Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 which states that if the document does not contain all the particulars, but contains the details of duty or service tax payable, the description of goods or taxable service, service tax registration number, person issuing the invoice etc., the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise can verify the same and if satisfied can allow the credit. The credit was denied for the reason that the invoices were not signed. In the said regard, it was observed that the Board instructions permitting digital signatures was effective only from July 2015 onwards. Thus, the original authority concluded that the invoices are not in the prescribed format as required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. However, merely because the computer generated invoice does not contain the signature, it cannot be said that the credit is ineligible. CInvoices issued by M/s. TVS Sundaram Motors (service provider) contains a different description of the service: It was alleged in the SCN that invoice maintained by dealer mentioned the description of service tax as additional incentives whereas the invoice with the same serial number maintained by the assessee had the description as data processing and policy related services . In the said regard, it was held that Appellant who is the service recipient cannot be found faulty for the description mentioned in the invoice maintained by the service provider as he has no control over the accounts maintained by the service provider (i.e. dealer). Thus, the credit at the recipient s end cannot be denied for this reason. Honorable Member technical held complete contrary view in the said case. In light of the difference of opinion between the Members i.e. Judicial and Technical. The said matter was referred to the Third Member. Thereafter the appellant had approached the Madras HC against such reference. HC had set-aside the difference of opinion expressed by Member Technical. Thereupon, the matter was intimated to the Third Member and also placed before the Hon'ble President. As the different of opinion was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, the order passed by Member (Judicial) was upheld. In view thereof, the impugned orders are set aside. Judgment Page | 19

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED 3.SHRI TAKHAT RAJ SAHU AND M/S KRN ALLOYS PVT.LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CGST JODHPUR [2024(8) TMI 1275 CESTAT NEW DELHI] This case deals with passing of fraudulent CENVAT Credit on the basis of fake invoices without actual supply of goods. In an investigation initiated by Anti evasion department against the supplier, it was alleged that the supplier has not received the goods from its supplier and therefore the question of supplying the same to appellant does not arise. Tribunal noted that the department has failed to bring on record any worthwhile evidence indicating non-supply of goods by the supplier to the appellant. However, appellant has provided various evidence such as details of transporter including their receipts, invoice, proof of payments, proof of receipt of goods in their premises, and their output indicating that goods were actually received. Further, department did not provide an opportunity to cross examine the statements recorded. The stand of department in upholding the second link in the chain of evidence is purely based on presumptions and assumptions i.e. supply of goods by supplier to the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the documentary evidence indicating receipt of goods from supplier. Hence, department has failed to establish a case against the appellant making them eligible for credit. Judgment Page | 20

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED COMPLIANCE CALENDAR SEPTEMBER 2024 FEMA ECB-2 Return 7th TDS/TCS Payment for September 2024 GSTR 7 Return for authorities deducting tax. 10th GST GSTR 8 Monthly return by E-commerce Operator regarding Supplies & Tax collected 11th GST GSTR 1- Details of outward supplies of taxable goods /services effected GSTR1 - Quarterly Return for Jul to Sept 2024 for QRMP Filers, whose T.O<5Cr. 13th GST GSTR 6-Monthly return For Input Service Distributor TCS Quarterly Statement for Jul to Sept TDS/TCS 15th Issue of TDS Certificate for tax deducted u/s 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M in Aug P.F/ESIC Monthly P.F/ESIC Payment for September 2024 18th GST CMP08- Quarterly Statement for composition taxable person for Jul to Sept 2024 GSTR 3B-Monthly return if aggregate T/O > 5Cr. 20th GST GSTR 5-Monthly return by Non-Resident (not having PE in India & making taxable supplies in India) 22nd GST GSTR 3B for Sept 2024 if aggregate turnover below Rs. 5Cr. (Note 1) 24th GST GSTR 3B for Sept 2024 if turnover below 5 Cr (for Rest of India) ITC-04 for Apr to Oct 2024 in respect of principal whose agg. T.O.> 5 Cr. during FY 2023-24 Form 61A - Statement of Financial Transactions by Depositories, Registrars & Share Transfer Agents for Q2 GST 25th Income Tax 30th TDS/TCS Issue of TCS Certificate for Jul to Sept by all Collectors GST To opt-out or in from QRMP for Oct to Dec 2024 Prof.Tax Rs. 1,00,000/- & above for September 2024 TDS Quarterly Statement (Other than Government Deductor) for July to Sept 31st Form 26QB- Deposit of TDS u/s 194-IA on payment made to purchase of property in sept Form 26QD- Deposit for TDS u/s 194M for Sept on payments made to professionals > 50 lacs pa by individual/HUF not subject to tax audit TDS/TCS Page | 21

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED Form 3CEAB- Intimation by designated Constituent entity, resident in India, of an International Group Annual audited accounts for each approved programmes under section 35(2AA) Copies of declaration received in Form 60 during Apr 1 to Sept 30, to the concerned Director/ Jt Director Filing of income tax return for AY 2024-25 for assesses or partners of firms whose accounts require auditing. Form 3CEB- Report for international and specified domestic transactions. Applicable along with Tax Audit under Section 44AB. Income Tax Form 3CEJ - Report by an eligible investment fund Form 67- Due date for claiming foreign tax credit Note 1 : For Andaman & Nicobar islands, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh , Dadra &Nagar Haveli, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana. Note 2: For Rest of India Page | 22

AFFLUENCE ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED Affluence Advisory Private Limited Address 601, Opulence Building, Above Bank of Baroda, 6th Road, Santacruz (East) Mumbai - 400 055. Contact Details Call: - 8591167727 Email:- contact@affluence.net.in Visit Our Website www.affluence.net.in Disclaimer: - This newsletter provides general information prevailing at the time of preparation, and we take no responsibility to update it with the subsequent changes in the law. The information provided hereinabove is intended as a news update, and Affluence Advisory neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this newsletter. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on specific facts and circumstances. This newsletter does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncement.