News Update

CBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal

MESSAGE BOARD

   

ITC under CGST Act - Where is need for linking of payments to suppliers?


Whether there is need for linking ITC under CGST Act - Where is the need for linking payments to supplier

The second proviso to Sec. 16(2) of CGST Act and Rule 2 of the draft Input Tax Credit Rules ,linking availability of input tax credit in respect of input supplies to payment, within the stipulated period ,of the value of the supply along with the tax payable thereon to the supplier of the input goods or service , has been adopted from the 2nd proviso to Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is applicable only to ‘input service’ and which provides that in case the payment for the value of the input service and the service tax payable thereon, as indicated in the invoice/bill/challan, on the basis of which credit has been taken by an assessee, is not made by him to the service provider within three months from the date of the invoice/bill/challan, the assessee shall pay an amount equal to the cenvat credit availed on such input service. Only the credit of the service tax which was paid by the assessee as service recipient on reverse charge basis is not subject to this condition. This provision of Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 dates back to the period prior to 01/04/2011 when liability to pay service tax arose only on receipt of payment by the service provider; but strangely, the same has been retained even during the period w.e.f. 01/04/2011, when in terms of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, liability to pay the service tax is no longer linked only to the date of receipt of payment, but can be from the date of issue of invoice also,if the issue of invoice precedes the payment. While Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was applicable only to input service, the analogous provisions in GST– Sec 16(2) of the CGST Act and Rule 2 of I T C Rules are applicable not only to the supply of services, but also to the supply of goods .
The availability of input tax credit in respect of any input goods or input services received by a GST assessee for use in relation to his business can be linked only to the actual payment of tax on those inputs , not to the payment by the assessee of the amount towards the value of the inputs along with tax payable thereon to the input supplier. The only purpose which I can think of for these strange provisions of CGST Act and draft I T C Rules (which are very much like the provisions of the 2nd proviso to Sec. 75(1) of the Customs Act ,1962 linking availability of duty drawback in respect of the goods exported to the receipt from the foreign buyer within the time limit stipulated under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 of the payment for the goods exported ) would be to make the issue of bogus invoices without supply of any goods or services difficult. But there are other ways of dealing with the problem of bogus invoices. Insisting on payment to the supplier of the value of the goods and / or services supplied along with the tax payable thereon for permitting input tax credit to the recipient in respect of those goods and / or services, besides the question of how the payment to the supplier would be ascertained, would cause harassment to a large number of bona fide assessees like the cases mentioned in the Article, where as a trade practice, in the construction or erection, installation & commissioning contracts, some amount, mostly 5% of the overall contract value, is retained as a ‘retention money’ to ensure successful completion of the contract as per the contract terms and specifications and which is paid to the contractor later on after successful completion of the contract - very often after one year from the date of the invoice. In the CGST Act , there is no explicit provision that if the payment is made by a GST assessee in respect of some input supplies after 180 days, he will become entitled to refund of the input tax credit and interest on it paid earlier, as the way the third proviso to Sec 16(2) is worded , it can not be interpreted to cover such cases of delayed payments. Therefore, once the payment by a GST assessee to his input supplier in respect of some input supplies is delayed beyond 180 days, he will lose the input tax credit even if he makes the payment after 180 days and even if his input supplier had paid full tax in respect of the supplies without receiving the payment. Since the CGST Act has already been passed, deleting the 2nd and 3rd proviso to Sec 16(2) would require an amendment to this Act which may take time. But since the draft I T C Rules are yet to be notified , at least the Rules should be modified to moderate these harsh provisions of Sec 16(2) by making a provision in the Rules to provide for restoration of the input tax credit and refund of interest in the cases where the payment to the supplier has been made after 180 days.

Rakesh Kumar
Member , CESTAT (Retd)

TIOL Complimentary 22/04/2017

 

Back

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023