Indirect Tax Alert – October 2022
GST Calendar –Compliances for the month of October 2022.
| Nature of Compliances | Due Date |
| GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source ‘TDS’) | November 10, 2022 |
| GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source ‘TCS’) | November 10, 2022 |
| GSTR-1 | November 11, 2022 |
| IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) | November 13, 2022 |
| GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor | November 13, 2022 |
| GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) | November 14, 2022 |
| GSTR-3B | November 20, 2022 |
| GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person) | November 20, 2022 |
| GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider) | November 20, 2022 |
| PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme) | November 25, 2022 |
- Section 171 to be construed in a manner which is directed towards furthering consumer and public interest
- Background
i. In the matter of Loreal India Private Limited Vs. Union of India the petitioner aggrieved by the order of National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The petitioner has contended that NAA is not netting of the benefit of rate reduction extended in some products as against those where the petitioner has not extended the benefit of rate reduction qua the subject products, by way of commensurate reduction in prices.
ii. The petitioner has increased the grammage on certain products where commensurate reduction in prices was not given.
iii. Further, post-sale discount (Ex- GST) has been granted by the petitioner for which NAA is not netting of the benefit of rate reduction extended.
- Held
iv. Under Section 171 any benefit of reduction in the rate of taxes or benefit of ITC on any supply of goods or services can only be by way of commensurate reduction in prices.
v. Further, Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 casts an obligation of every supplier of goods and services/registered person to pass on the benefit of rate reduction of GST or the benefit of ITC on every supply and not on some supplies. Consequently, prima facie, a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he could pass less or no benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer.
vi. Therefore, the Hon’ble HC of Delhi has held that the post-sale discount has not been granted on account of GST rate reduction and therefore, does not qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 of the Act.
2. FORM GST DRC-03 is not valid for making pre-deposit for filing of Appeal
i. Vide Instruction No CBIC-240137/14/2022-SERVICE TAX SECTION-CBEC dated October 22, 2022 CBIC has clarified regarding payment of pre-deposits for filing of appeal
ii. It has been noticed that certain appeals have been rejected by some Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of pre-deposit requirements as mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act.
iii. This issue has also been referred to the Board by the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in writ petition No. 6220 of 2022 in the matter of Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India and Ors., with directions to examine and issue suitable instructions in this regard.
iv. In view of the above, it has been clarified that Form GST DRC -03 is prescribed for payment of tax, interest, penalty under the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, under GST Act also, Form GST DRC-03 is not a prescribed mode for payment of pre-deposit. Further it has been prescribed that CBIC-GST Integrated portal should only be utilized for making pre- deposits under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Merely because petitioner has an option of seeking revocation of cancellation of registration, u/s 30 of the GST Act, it cannot be said that independent of the said remedy, an appeal would not be maintainable.
- Background
i. In the matter of Smt Shailaja Chandrasekhar vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), the Respondents had passed an order dated 13.04.2020 revoking/cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner – Petitioner submits that due to COVID-19 they could not file an appeal within the prescribed period and subsequently filed an appeal on 30.03.2022.
ii. However, on 22.04.2022, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as the only option available to the petitioner was to approach the respondent no.2 for revocation of the cancellation and restoration of the registration – Petitioner further submits that the entire tax payable up to the date of cancellation and for the subsequent period also a certain amount has been deposited before the appellate authority.
iii. Aggrieved, Petitioner is before the High Court by way of the present petition.
- Held
iv. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held that merely because the petitioner has an option of seeking revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, it cannot be said that independent of the said remedy, an appeal would not be maintainable.
v. As such, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority summarily dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of availability of the remedy of seeking revocation of the cancellation is clearly contrary to Section 107 and Section 30 of the CGST Act and same deserves to be set aside
vi. Explanation offered by the petitioner in not seeking revocation of the cancellation within a stipulated period of 30 days under Section 30 of the CGST Act is to be held as valid and proper and respondent No.2 is to be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with law subject to payment of outstanding due taxes by the petitioner in accordance with law.