GST Calendar –Compliances for the month of March’2022
| Nature of Compliances | Due Date |
| GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source ‘TDS’) | April 10,2022 |
| GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source ‘TCS’) | April 10,2022 |
| GSTR-1 | April 11,2022 |
| IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) | April 13,2022 |
| GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor | April 13,2022 |
| GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) | April 14,2022 |
| GSTR-3B | April 20,2022 |
| GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person) | April 20,2022 |
| GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider) | April 20,2022 |
| PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme) | April 25,2022 |
- Negative blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger not allowed under Rule 86A of the Act | Samay Alloys India Private Limited | Gujarat High Court
Facts: Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of MS Billets. Petitioner attempted to file their monthly return for the month of September’21, wherein there was no ITC ledger balance with the Petitioner. Irrespectively, the portal displayed a message that electronic credit ledger balance has been blocked and that a negative balance has been entered by the Revenue in the said ledger. Petitioner wants to file its return for the month of September’21 by claiming Input Tax Credit, they were required to pay additional output tax to the extent of negative balance appearing in the said ledger while filing their GST return. Accordingly, it means that that the Petitioner would immediately be liable to pay additional amount of tax equivalent to the negative block even without any adjudication if they would proceed to file such return. Petitioner had requested for reason to block the ITC in writing whereas the Respondent has overlooked their request. Further, Petitioner had deposited the said amount to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs under protest with the Ex-chequer in order to file their GST returns.
Issue : Whether it is legal as per Rule 86A to block the electronic credit ledger and insertion of negative balance when there is nil balance in credit ledger.
Held : Hon’ble High Court observed that Rule 86A of the CGST Rules is divided into two parts i.e., the opening part which deals with the conditions required to be fulfilled in order to invoke the powers under the said rule and the second part provides for the consequences in case Rule 86A is invoked. Further, it observed the conditions to be fulfilled before the powers can be exercised by the Revenue, enlisted as below:
- Credit of input tax should be available in the electronic credit ledger;
- The Commissioner of an officer authorized by him should have reason to believe that such credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible;
- The reason to believe are be recorded in writing.
Hon’ble Court noted that blocking of credit in the said manner shall tantamount to recovery even without adjudication. Further, that the Revenue is not remediless with respect to the alleged wrongful availment of the input tax credit and that The admissibility of input tax credit can be verified through issuance of show-cause notice and, thereafter, with the adjudication of the liability. The authorities have ample powers of recovery including the power of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. However, the power under Rule 86A could not have been invoked in the absence of any credit balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Hon’ble High directed the respondents to withdraw negative block of the Electronic Credit Ledger at the earliest and held that the Revenue has no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future. It further held that the Petitioner is also entitled to the refund of Rs.20 Lakh deposited by them under protest to enable them to file their return and that the Respondents shall refund the said amount of Rs.20 Lakh to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order
- Food sold via take-away counters / parcel is not ‘service’ under erstwhile ST Regime – M/s Thalapakatti Hotels Private Limited | Madras High Court:
Facts : Petitioners run air-conditioned restaurants and was registered under erstwhile Service Tax regime for providing restaurant services, outdoor catering services and mandap-keeping services. Petitioner also undertakes sale of food at the take-away counter / by parcel. Further, Petitioner doesn’t charge service tax on the said transaction considering them as sale of packaged food constitutes pure trading activity.Audit was undertaken by the Revenue and it was concluded by the Department that service tax shall be leviable on ‘take away/parcel services’ and hence tax liability needs to be discharged for the period upto June, 2017 by the Petitioner.
Issue : Whether Service Tax shall be levied on food sold through ‘take-away counter / by parcels’.
Held : Hon’ble High Court observed the definition of Service tax under the erstwhile Service Tax regime which excludes the transfer of title in goods by way of sale. Further, Hon’ble High Court noted that in most of the restaurants, there is a separate counter for collection of the take-away food parcels. Orders are received either over telephone, by e-mail, online booking or through a food delivery service such as Swiggy or Zomato. Once processed and readied for delivery, the parcels are brought to a separate counter and are picked up either by the customer or a delivery service. Further, the take-away counters are generally positioned away from the main dining area that may or may not be air-conditioned. Furthermore, in any event, the consumption of the food and drink is not in the premises of the restaurant. Hon’ble High Court set aside the order’s passed by Revenue and held the that the provision of food and drink to be taken-away in parcels by restaurants tantamount to the sale of food and drink and does not attract service tax under the Act.
- Service Tax paid under RCM post submission of GST transitional claims shall be refundable u/s 142(3) | M/s Ganges International Private Limited | Madras High Court
Facts: Petitioner is registered under the erstwhile Service Tax regime and has procured mining rights from the State Government for which royalty was paid to Government. Petitioner has duly filed its last service tax return in the erstwhile regime for the quarter from April to June 2017 by the due date. Subsequently, during audit conducted by CERA, it was pointed out to the Petitioner that service tax is payable on such royalty under reverse charge mechanism. Petitioner, therefore, had paid the same along with interest. Petitioner being a service recipient in the instant service, is entitled for credit of service tax paid under reverse charge. However, Petitioner could not claim ITC on the said transaction through transitional credits forms i.e, TRAN-1 as last date of filing of said forms was already elapsed. Subsequently, Petitioner had made an application (within the time limit) to the Revenue for ITC for refund of the said amount, however, the said application being considered was rejected through Order issued by Revenue. However, the Order recognized that the assesse is eligible for taking Cenvat credit of the amount so paid under Service Tax Rules. Furthermore, as there is no provision under the new GST regime to allow as ITC in Electronic cash ledger such plea made by the Petitioner for refund of the ITC cannot be considered and refunded. Therefore, the claim was untenable and accordingly rejected.
Issue: Whether service tax paid can be claimed as ITC under the transition provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held: Hon’ble High Court noted that without invoking Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, Petitioner shall be remediless in the current transaction. Accordingly, Hon’ble High Court had set aside the Order issued by Revenue and remitted back the matter to Revenue for reconsideration in terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 by invoking ‘Doctrine of Necessity’.