CBIC extends the due date for filing GSTR-9 & 9C for F.Y 2017-18 in a Staggered Manner for different group of States

Considering the difficulties being faced by taxpayers in filing GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2017-18 it has been decided to extend the due dates in a staggered manner for different groups of States to 3rd, 5th and 7th February 2020 as under. Notifications will follow.

Group 1: Maharashtra, Karnataka, Goa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Other Territory - 3rd February 2020 Group 2: Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Chandigarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan, Gujarat- 5th February 2020

Group 3: Bihar, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh- 7th February 2020

CBIC extends the due date for filing GSTR-9 & 9C for F.Y 2017-18 in a Staggered Manner for a different group of States

Official Notification will be issued in the regard.

Source: https://twitter.com/cbic_india/status/1223289890558758912

Madras HC denies exemption benefit w.r.t. imports made prior to registration under Rules

Synopsis: The Hon’ble Madras HC in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1699 of 2017 dated January 6^th, 2020, allowed the Revenue’s appeal to hold that to avail the exemption of duty under any Notification, the Rules and Regulations and the conditions prescribed therein have to be strictly adhered and thus, the Assessee is not entitled to claim exemption in respect of import of goods made prior to the date of Registration under Rule 3 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (“Customs Import Rules 1996”).

Facts:

The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (“the Appellant” or “Revenue”) has filed an appeal in the Hon’ble Madras High Court (“Madras HC”) against the Final Order No. 41210 of 2015 dated September 14^th, 2015 passed by the CESTAT Chennai in favour of Medreich Sterilab Ltd. (“the Respondent”) vide Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1699 of 2017, whereby the Hon’ble Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant in favour of the Respondent M/s. Medreich Sterilab Limited (“the Company” or “the Assessee”).

The Tribunal upheld the order of the lower appellate authority and thereby granted the exemption claimed by the Company, while observing that Rule 3 & 4 of the Customs Import Rules 1996 were only procedural in nature. Therefore, though the Application for registration under Rule 3 was filed later on and the Registration granted to the Respondent to avail the exemption from payment of duty in respect of import under Bill of Entry No. 550344 dated June 28^th, 2003 under which goods imported in question which were cleared by the Customs Authority on June 30^th, 2003, prior to the date of Registration under Rule 3 on July 14^th, 2003, the Company should be granted the exemption claimed.

Revenue’s Contention:

The Tribunal has erred in holding that the requirement of Registration under Rule 3 and 4 of the aforesaid Rules of 1996 were only procedural and the import of goods in question prior to the registration on July 14^th, 2003 could not entitle the Company to avail the exemption of duty on the basis of such registration and therefore the Tribunal has erred in granting such exemption in favour of the Assessee.

Assessee’s Contention:

The Certificate was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise allowing the Company to avail such exemption with respect to the same Bill of Entry No. 550344 dated June 30^th, 2003 on July 3^rd, 2003 itself and therefore even though the registration of Assessee under 1996 Rules was done later on July 14^th, 2003, the Assessee had rightly availed the said exemption and the Rules in question are only directory in nature and therefore the order of the learned Tribunal is justified in accordance with law.

Issue involved:

Whether the Assessee is eligible to avail the benefit of exemption of duty for the pre-registration period?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras HC passed the following order in the matter of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1699 of 2017 dated January 6^th, 2020:

• The Tribunal has erred in holding that the Rules are merely procedural or directory in nature and upholding the grant of exemption to the Assessee in respect of Bill of Entry No. 550344 dated June 28^th, 2003 by which the goods were imported and cleared on June 30^th, 2003. The Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee is not under the aforesaid 1996 Rules but it is only a Certificate that the Assessee has not availed the CENVAT Credit on that consignment and that Certificate has nothing to do with the 1996 Rules in question.
• We do not see any justification for the learned Tribunal to hold that these Rules are only procedural or directory in nature and therefore it could be applied for the import made at prior point of time. Then, the very purpose of Rules and requirement of the Assessee to apply under Rule 4 for the intended imports in future would be frustrated, if these Rules were to be applied retrospectively to the imports already made. There was no question of substantial compliance by the Assessee. The very initiation of procedure of registration and application was not undertaken by the Assessee in the present case.
• It is well settled law that to avail the exemption of duty under any Notification, the Rules and Regulations and the conditions prescribed therein have to be strictly adhered and there is no place for equity or intendment in the interpretation of the taxing Statutes. By holding that the Rules of 1996 are only procedural or directory in nature, the learned Tribunal has frustrated the very purpose of Rules 3 and 4 in question by holding that the Assessee is entitled to the exemption for import made on June 28^th, 2003. There is no dispute before us that the registration under Rules 1996 was granted in favour of the Assessee only on July 14^th, 2003 and not at any point of time prior to that and therefore we cannot uphold the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

The Hon’ble Madras HC conclusively allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal consequently closing the miscellaneous petitions.

Important Provisions:

Rule 3 of Customs Import Rules, 1996  : Registration

(1) A manufacturer intending to avail of the benefit of an exemption notification referred in sub-rule (1) of rule 2, shall obtain a registration from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory.

(2) The registration shall contain particulars about the name and address of the manufacturer, the excisable goods produced in his factory, the nature and description of imported goods used in the manufacture of such goods.

(3) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise shall issue a certificate to the manufacturer indicating the particulars refer to in sub-rule(2).

Rule 4 of Customs Import Rules, 1996 : Application by the Manufacturer to obtain the benefit

(1) A manufacturer who has obtained a certificate referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 and intends to import any goods for use in his factory at concessional rate of duty, shall make an application to this effect to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise indicating the estimated quantity and value of such goods to be imported, particulars of the notification applicable on such import and the port of import.

(1A) The manufacture may, at his option, file the application specified under sub-rule (1), either in respect of a particular consignment, or indicating his estimated requirement of such goods for a period not exceeding one year.

(2) The manufacturer shall also give undertaking on the application that the imported goods shall be used for the intended purpose.

(3) The application shall be countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise who shall certify therein that the manufacturer is registered in his office and has executed a bond to his satisfaction in respect of end use of the imported goods in the manufacturer's factory and indicate the particulars of such bond."

CBIC Clarification w.r.t. exemption on import of gifts

Background:

Clarifications were sought as regards Notification No. 35/2015-2020 dated December 12^th, 2019 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (“DGFT”) and how the same has to be read with Notification No. 50/2017 – Customs dated June 30^th, 2017 (“said Notification”) especially in relation to the exemption available for imports of bonafide gifts up to CIF value of Rs. 5,000/-. References have been made to Instruction No. 9/2017 – Customs dated July 5^th, 2017 (“Instruction”) raising the issue of difficulty in implementing the DGFT Notification due to the Instruction.

Clarification:

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (“CBIC”) vide Circular No. 4/2020 – Customs dated January 21^st, 2020 has clarified that –

DGFT notification effectively means that if goods are imported through courier or post (be it e-commerce gifts or otherwise) as gifts & seek the exemption available for imports of bonafide gifts up to a CIF value of Rs. 5,000/- vide SI. No. 608A of the said Notification, then the imports will be prohibited. However, the goods imported as gifts can be allowed import free (i.e. without prohibition) on payment of full applicable duties.

Since the goods imported as gifts will be personal imports, hence the applicable duties on them will be as follows –

1. Basic Customs Duty @ applicable tariff rate as per the First Schedule of Customs Tariff Act for the heading 9804 which is currently at 35%.
2. IGST @ rate specified for the heading 9804 (SI. No. 227 Schedule IV) in Notification No. 1/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28^th, 2017 for IGST which is currently at 28%.

Lifesaving drugs/medicines can continue to avail exemption available under SI. No. 607A as well as SI. No. 608A of the said Notification. Also, Section 25(6) of the Customs Act provides that if the duty on any goods is less than one hundred rupees, then same will not be collected.

The Instruction was issued to clarify the application of clause 3(1)(i) of Foreign Trade (Exemption from application of Rules in certain cases) Order 1993 which puts a restriction on personal imports above CIF value of Rs. 2,000/-. However, the FTO 1993 has since been amended and further, vide Notification No. 16/2015-20 dated July 12^th, 2017, the DGFT has removed the value cap of Rs. 2,000/- w.r.t personal imports as well as fully aligned the chapter notes in ITC (HS) with those enacted under Chapter 98 of the Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, the Instruction is rendered obsolete and are now rescinded.

Further, the officers are advised to strictly follow the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act r.w. Customs Valuation (Determination of value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2017, for valuation of imports through courier and posts, to avoid undervaluation by unscrupulous importers.

Read more at : http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources/htdocs-cbec/customs/cs-circulars/cs-circulars-2020/Circular-No-04-2020.pdf

CA Bimal Jain

Traders protest against GST Dept

Traders gathered outside the Daresi police station here today to protest the alleged high-handedness of the Central GST Department officials. The GST officials had raided the premises of a hosiery manufacturer at Bajwa Nagar on Wednesday. The protesters reached the police station and sought the cancellation of the FIR registered against traders and demanded a suitable action against the GST officials who raided the factory and ‘harassed’ the traders. They also accused the officials of demanding funds for a school, for which they were issuing a slip.

The traders threatened to resort to an agitation if appropriate action was not taken against the department officials. Meanwhile, the police officials claimed that the allegations against the GST officials were baseless and the manufacturer against whom an FIR was registered had to pay GST dues worth Rs 18 lakh. The manufacturer called other traders and they together interfered in the working of GST officials and created a ruckus. Talking to The Tribune, Vinod Jain, vice-president, Vyapar Bachao Morcha, said: on Wednesday, around six persons reached the premises of a hosiery manufacturer in Bajwa Nagar and started asking for documents. They went inside the factory around 1 pm and continued the raid till 8:30 pm.

“I requested them to let me inside, but to no avail. When I managed to get inside, I found the factory owner was being treated badly. Although no incriminating documents were recovered from the premises, yet the officials took Rs 15 lakh from the owner. Not only this, an FIR has been registered against four persons on a complaint filed by the GST officials. “Strangely, they were carrying no search warrant. They also did not show their identity cards. They issued a slip in the name of a school for which they were collecting money,” alleged Jain, who accompanied the traders to the Daresi police station.

Assistant Sub-inspector Jagtar Singh from the Daresi police station, said: “The trader had to pay Rs 18 lakh as GST. He called upon other traders to join him in the protest. They interfered in the working of government officials and even snatched search warrant.”

Read More at: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/traders-protest-against-gst-dept-28012

Raid at bus companies unveils Rs 1 cr GST evasion

The directorate general of GST intelligence (DGGI), Ludhiana zonal unit, has registered a case of GST evasion against prominent passenger bus services companies Libra Bus Services Limited, Ludhiana, and Maharaja Travels, Amritsar for non-payment of GST.

Sources said the case has been registered as both the firms were neither filing their GST returns regularly nor were discharging their due liabilities on taxable services (transportation of passengers on AC buses). On preliminary scrutiny of various documents and evidences gathered from the business premises of both the firms, the tax liability worth more than Rs 1 crore has been detected, sources said.

Read More at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ludhiana/raid-at-bus-companies-unveils-rs-1-cr-gst-evasion/articleshow/73342050.cms

Gujarat HC issues notice in writ challenging validity of Section 129 of CGST Act w.r.t. detention of goods; grants interim relief

The Hon’ble HC, Gujarat in the matter of AAB India Ltd. v. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 728 of 2020 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 decided on January 10, 2020] issues notice in writ petition challenging validity of Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (“CGST Act”)/ Gujrat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“GGST”), which grants arbitrary and unrestrained power to detain goods and is thereby violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

AAB India Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) has been issued GST MOV-07 by the Department (“Respondent”) under CGST Act/ GGST Act for four vehicles carrying goods in the nature of electrical goods. Later, the Petitioner has also received order in GST MOV-09 on January 9, 2020. The total liability towards the tax and penalty plus interest as fixed comes to around ₹ 1,00,81,944/.

Issue involved:

Challenged the validity of Section 129 of the CGST Act/ GGST Act.

Held:

The Hon’ble HC, Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 728 of 2020 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 decided on January 10, 2020, held as under:

• It appears that a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act/ GGST Act i.e. GST MOV-07 came to be issued calling upon the Petitioner to appear before the authority concerned on December 31, 2019.

• The legal issues, which have been raised by the Petitioner shall be heard and decided on the returnable date. However, the court was inclined to pass an interim order for the release of the goods and the vehicles.

• Direct the Petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 50,40,972/- towards the tax with the Respondent and the balance amount of ₹ 50,40,972/- towards the penalty shall be in the form of a bank guarantee of any nationalized bank.

The HC has posted the matter on February 12, 2020.

Relevant provisions:

Section 129 of CGST Act/ GGST Act:

“129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,––

(a) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty;

(b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per cent. of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and penalty;

(c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (6) of section 67 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply for detention and seizure of goods and conveyances.

(3) The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order for payment of tax and penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c).

(4) No tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard.

(5) On payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded.

(6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section (1) within fourteen days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of section 130:

Provided that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazardous in nature or are likely to depreciate in value with passage of time, the said period of seven days may be reduced by the proper officer.”

Temporary or permanent transfer of intellectual property attracts 12% GST

Q. We are manufacturers and exporters of agro chemicals (e.g., pesticides and weedicides). In connection with manufacturing of one of our products, we intend to import process technology to improve the yield of finished goods, with reduced process/production time. The technology is normally imported in electronic form with an option to get a printed copy by courier. Please let us know the tax implications.

This transaction is transfer of intellectual property. As per entry no. 5(c) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017, “temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of any intellectual property right” is a service. But, permanent transfer of intellectual property is taxed, inexplicably, as a service as well as goods. As per S.No. 17 of notification no. 8/2017-IT (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, temporary or permanent transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of Intellectual Property (IP) right in respect of goods other than information technology software, under the Service Code 9973, attracts IGST of 12 per cent. As per S.No. 1 of Table in the notification no. 10/2017-IT (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, IGST on such a service from a non-resident to a resident is payable by the recipient of the service under reverse charge mechanism. “Permanent transfer of Intellectual Property (IP) right in respect of goods other than Information Technology software”, falling under any Chapter is classified as goods also and attracts the same IGST rate of 12 per cent under S.No.243 of Schedule II of the notification 1/2017-IT (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. IP finds no mention in the Customs Tariff.

Q. Under the EPCG scheme, is it necessary that for redemption, the export proceeds should have been realised? Will exports made, for which payment has not yet come forth, be counted towards discharge of export obligation? Please give the relevant provisions.

Para 5.11 of HBP says “export proceeds shall be realised in freely convertible currency except for deemed exports supplies under Chapter 7. Exports to SEZ units /Supplies to developers/ co-developers irrespective of currency of realisation would also be counted for discharge of Export Obligation. Realization in case of supplies to SEZ units shall be from foreign currency account of the SEZ unit.” Appendix-5C of the HBP also requires the Chartered Accountant to clearly certify that the exporter has submitted e-BRC and the same have been verified.

Q. We had imported an item (ethyl alcohol: ITCHS Code22072000), which falls under the Restricted List, duty free under Advance Authorisation, as per Para 4.18 (iv) of FTP, 2015-2020. However, after import, the overseas buyer has cancelled the export orders. The entire imported quantity is lying with us and we do not have any export order. Can we use this imported raw material to manufacture the finished product and sell in the domestic market, after paying Customs Duty, interest and 3 per cent of CIF Value (as per Para 4.49 (ii) of HBP, 2015-2020)?

Yes. The said Para 4.49 of HBP clearly allows regulation of bona fide defaults even in cases where restricted items were imported under advance authorisation and remain unutilised in export production.

Read More at: https://www.business-standard.com/article/sme/temporary-or-permanent-transfer-of-intellectual-property-attracts-12-gst-120011301255_1.html

CA Bimal Jain 

Courier companies seek relief on GST E-way bill rule

Courier companies such as FedEx, DHL, and UPS are in a bind over-delivering imported goods to customers because of a goods and services tax rule that bars defaulters from issuing e-waybills. The document is mandatory for transport of goods worth over Rs 50,000. On the other hand, the customs department won’t hold such goods in its storage once they’re cleared. The companies, including local ones such as DTDC, Safe Express, Gati and Delhivery, have petitioned the government to seek a way out of the dilemma.

The government said it’s examining the issue. GST Rule 138E, which took effect in November, doesn’t allow an entity that hasn’t filed returns for two straight months to generate an e-waybill. While the rule won’t impact direct deliveries to ecommerce customers, business-tobusiness (B2B) orders from overseas will likely get hit.  Import consignments of companies, which may have missed filing returns and are unable to generate an e-waybill, cannot be delivered. But the goods cannot be kept inside the customs premises once cleared.

Read More at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/courier-companies-seek-relief-on-gst-e-way-bill-rule/articleshow/73347364.cms

GST leviable on the compensation paid to lessor for vacating its claim

The Hon’ble AAR, Goa in the matter of M/s Goa Industrial Development Corporation [AAR No. GOA/GAAR/01 of 2019-20/1875 dated October 17, 2019] has held that the compensation paid by the Applicant on lessor’s deposit would clearly qualify as ‘supply of service’ under clause 5 of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) and therefore liable to GST.

Facts:

M/s Goa Industrial Development Corporation (“the Applicant”) is a Government of Goa Undertaking and vide Deed of Lease had allotted land to 7 parties for setting up Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”). However, this could not materialize due to protest from the people. As a result, deposit taken from the parties had to be refunded. However, the Applicant refused to pay compensation on this deposit, as the original Deed of Lease never mentioned such clause. The parties approached the Supreme Court, who intervened and directed the Applicant to compensate parties with interest at the rate of 8.25%. The Government of Goa through the Council of Ministers in its 33^rd Cabinet Meeting resolved to approve the proposal of the Applicant to take back all the land allotted to 7 parties for setting up SEZ and refund the amount paid by SEZ parties along with interest, earned on such amounts paid by the parties amounting to ₹ 256,56,90,593/-.

Issue involved:

Whether an obligation to refrain from an Act, or to tolerate an Act or a situation treated as supply of Goods/Services under Section 7 read with Schedule II of CGST Act?

Held:

The Hon’ble AAR, Goa in AAR No. GOA/GAAR/01 of 2019-20/1875 dated October 17, 2019 held as under:

• In the entire process discussed above, the Applicant has agreed to do an act of vacating the claim by parties of setting up SEZ units for which the Applicant has paid consideration.

• Thus, the original amount which is paid back along with compensation would clearly qualify as ‘Supply of Services’ under clause 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act.

Our Comments:

The above ruling has discussed the definition of supply under Section 7(1)(d) of the CGST Act as it existed prior to retrospective amendment w.e.f. July 1, 2017, vide the CGST Amendment Act, 2018. Thus, the above ruling fails to appreciate the fact that Section 7(1)(d) of the CGST Act which included items of Schedule II under the ‘includes’ portion of term ‘supply’, has been omitted w.e.f. July 1, 2017, with insertion of Section 7(1A) which states that “where certain activities or transactions constitute a supply in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), they shall be treated either as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II”. Hence, reference of Schedule II is now restricted to only classification as supply of goods or services if the activity/ transaction qualifies as supply in terms of Section 7(1) of the CGST Act.

Relevant provision:

Section 7 of the CGST Act:

“7. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “supply” includes-

(a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;

(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;

(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration; and

1A) where certain activities or transactions constitute a supply in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), they shall be treated either as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1).-

(a) activities or transactions specified in Schedule III; or

(b) such activities or transactions undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, specify, by notification, the transactions that are to be treated as-

(a) a supply of goods and not as a supply of services; or

(b) a supply of services and not as a supply of goods.”

Para 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act:

“5. Supply of services

The following shall be treated as supply of services, namely:

 (e) agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act; and.”

CA Bimal Jain

GST- Ten Matters to keep in mind in 2020*.

*GST- Ten Matters to keep in mind in 2020*

1. *E-invoice* : New E-invoicing system is going to be implemented in GST which is mandatory from 1st April 2020 for taxpayers having an annual turnover exceeding Rs. 100 crore and then gradually to all B2B suppliers in the future. A mechanism for the continuous upload of revenue invoices on a real-time basis. This is the most remarkable change coming in Indian Book Keeping.

2. *New IRP in GST:* Invoice Registration Portal would be introduced this new year. IRP shall make an e-invoice of the invoices uploaded by the supplier. IRP shall send the e-invoice to the supplier and recipient. IRP shall send e-invoices data to GSTN portal

3. *New Return*: New simplified auto-mated GST returns would be implemented from 1st April 2020 for all taxpayers. This new returns system will increase compliance and reduce tax evasion to a larger extent.

4. *Annexure 1 and Annexure 2:* Anx-1 of Outward Supplies and Anx-2 of Inward Supplies will be the future base for filing of all GST Returns, thus these 2 reports will be the key for future reports of GST which will replace GSTR 1 and GSTR-2A.

5. *Restriction on claim of ITC:* With effect from 01/01/2020, ITC in respect of invoices or debit notes that are not reflected in taxpayer’s FORM GSTR-2A shall be restricted to 10 percent of the eligible ITC reflected in his FORM GSTR-2A. Earlier the restriction was 20%. A major change in ITC availment.

6. *E-way Bill and GSTR-1*: From 11th January, 2020 non-filing of GSTR-1 for two consecutive periods would block generation of E-way Bill. Thus, regular filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B in year 2020 should go hand in hand.

7. *Waiver of late fees for Non-filing of GSTR-1*: If the taxpayer has failed to file GSTR-1 from July 2017 to November 2019, then the taxpayers can file such returns till 10 January, 2020 and the late fees for the same has been waived of. This will also affect GSTR-2A of the recipient to claim ITC.

8. *GST Audit and Annual Return*: The due date for filing GST Annual Return and Audit Report for F.Y. 2017-18 has been further extended to 31st January, 2020.The due date for filing GST Annual Return and Audit Report for F.Y 2018-19 has been extended to 31st March, 2020. For F.Y 2019-20 new format may be brought in because of inherent limitations in current forms.

9. *DIN notices and E-scrutiny*: Due to decline in collection of revenue from GST, large scale e-scrutiny and e-assessment notices with DIN for the returns from July 2017 may be taken up. It would be done in order to check significant deviations in returns.

10. *GSTN Network is proposed to be reengineered*  for more taxpayer-centric services like reminder of return filing, status of refund, ITC matches and mismatches, etc.