Issue regarding discharge of gross tax liability while filing gst returns

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

It is requested to guide regarding any circular, notification or any other direction by Government of India which states that 5% of the gross tax liability to be compulsorily paid from cash ledger while filing gst returns.

[Padmanathan KV]

Is it Rule 86B of the CGST Rules which restricts utilization of electronic credit ledger?
 

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

No sir it is not Rule 86B.

[Padmanathan KV]

May I know in what context the query is raised?

is it because of any point in ASMT-10 or like notices?

[VIPUL JHAVERI]

This may be useful

Notification No. & Date of Issue:  94/2020-Central Tax dated 22.12.2020

https://gstcouncil.gov.in/942020-central-tax-dated-22122020

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

Thank you Mr Vipul Jhaveri Sir but still my problem is about 5 % of the gross tax liability. The notification you sent is for Rule 86B.

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

Dear Mr Padmanathan the query has been regarding a penlty order u/s 74. It is raised by an Additional Commissioner. As per the order the assessee has discharged his liability all through ITC and a little bit from cash ledger. Now the Additional Commisoner wants to know about whether the "5%" rule of paying liability through cash ledger applies to our case or not i.e. regarding its date of applicability (from and to)

[VIPUL JHAVERI]

5 % cash payments getting found for ecom

https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10592

article by shri bimal jalan ji 

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

Sorry mr jhaveri but that also does not answer my query as my assessee is not an ecommerce operator thank you

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear querist

Please refer Rule 36[4] of the CGST Rules, 2017 as amended for the relevant year governing the claim of ITC.

[Padmanathan KV]

In Kerala also, ASMT-10 notices were sent stating that assessee has paid cash less than 5% of the liability.

Now, there is a State Commissioner Circular directing to drop the proceedings in this issue. Accordingly, this doesn't form part of Section 73/ 74 SCN anymore. I can share the link of the Circular, if that would help.

Anyhow, there is no legal backing to this 5% cash requirement. It is only a 'reg flag'  for the Dept. to look into possible sales suppression. Ideally, in such cases the Department should conduct an audit/ verification of books and stock registers to establish the actual suppression. They cannot directly ask the assessee to pay 5% in cash along with interest or penalty.

[Padmanathan KV]

Circular No 7/2021 in File No.CT/7533/2021-C1 dated 7-11-2021

II. Among the risk parameters flagged, the following parameters have been identified as defect that cannot be determined without detailed enquiry or investigation.

• ASMT-13 - Return within 30 days

• ITC utilisation greater than 5 times cash

• Turnover above 1crore cash nil

• Turnover above 60 percent In the above parameters the following instructions shall be followed.

1. If discrepancy notice in Form GST ASMT-10 is not issued yet, then “Archive” such cases, provided no other parameters involved other than those specified above.

2. If discrepancy notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued and pending for further proceedings then contact the noticee and request him to furnish a reply in Form GST ASMT-11 through the common portal. If there is any technical issue to file reply through common portal, then request the tax payer to file the same through the registered e-mail id. On receipt of such reply, issue order of acceptance in Form GST ASMT-12 stating that the discrepancy intimated requires detailed enquiry or investigation. Before the issuance of order of acceptance ensure that no other parameters were involved in the notice in Form GST ASMT-10 other than those specified above.

3. After the discrepancy notice in Form GST ASMT-10, if an intimation in Part A of Form GST DRC-01 Au/s. 73(5) or 74(5) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the case may be issued and pending for further proceedings, then contact the noticee and request him to furnish a reply in Part B of Form GST DRC-01 A through the registered e-mail Id. On receipt of such reply record the case as the defect mentioned in the intimation requires detailed enquiry or investigation. Before recording the case ensure that no other parameters were involved in the intimation in Part A of Form GST DRC-01A other than those specified above.

4. If Show Cause Notice u/s. 73(1) or 74(1) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the case may be was issued along with Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, then after considering the representation in Form GST DRC-06, and if the demand amount is not quantified in the SCN, (which should be the case as the parameters above alone do not enable quantification of a demand), a “nil” demand order may be issued along with the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 stating that the subject matter mentioned in the SCN requires detailed enquiry or investigation. Before the issue of such orders, ensure that no other parameters were involved in the SCN other than those specified above

[Padmanathan KV]

Apologies, it was 5 times in Kerala, not 5%. Anyhow both doesn't have any legal backing.

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

Thank you Mr Padmanathan.

[Shilpi Jain]

5% tax liability needs to be paid through cash ledger in case of residential units and commercial units in RREP. ITC cannot be used to pay this liability. Pls have a look at the services rate notificaiton.

[Sanjeev Agrawal]

Thank you Ms Shilpi but my query was for a trader who deals in elctronics items.

AI Summary

Clarification on GST: No Legal Basis for Mandatory 5% Cash Payment; It's a Departmental Alert, Not Enforceable. A participant raised a query about the requirement to pay 5% of gross tax liability from the cash ledger when filing GST returns. Various contributors suggested rules and notifications, such as Rule 86B and Notification 94/2020, but these did not resolve the issue. The query concerned a penalty order under Section 74, where an Additional Commissioner questioned the applicability of the 5% rule. It was clarified that there is no legal backing for a mandatory 5% cash payment; it serves as a departmental alert for potential sales suppression. The discussion included references to specific rules and notifications but concluded that the 5% requirement lacks legal enforcement.