Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No 116 ON ITC ADMISSIBILITY ON RENTING OF VEHICLES HAVING SEATING CAPCACITY BELOW 13 PERSONS

GST UPDATE No 116 ON ITC ADMISSIBILITY ON RENTING OF VEHICLES HAVING SEATING CAPCACITY BELOW 13 PERSONS
The issue regarding availability of input tax credit (ITC) on renting/hiring of motor vehicles has been contentious issue since inception. It was believed that there would be less disputes as regards ITC admissibility in GST regime as the law was formulated with the idea of providing seamless flow of ITC. However, the restrictions imposed vide section 17(5) has defeated the basic idea of seamless flow of credit and has ignited humongous litigation. Recently, we had discussed in detail the admissibility of ITC in case of hiring of buses by employer for transportation of employees and it was held by UP AAR in the case of DR WILLMAR SCHWABE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED that ITC is admissible in such cases. However, recently Tamil Nadu AAR in the case of NEW PANDIAN TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED [ORDER NO. 43/AAR/2021 dated 30.11.2021] considered the issue as regards availability of ITC on motor vehicles having seating capacity of less than 13 persons when rented to another company for transportation of its employees. The outcome of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of the present update. The applicant is engaged in transporting passengers as a rent-a-cab operator by providing the motor vehicle on hire or rental basis, either directly to the passengers or to the organisations for transportation of their employees. They are presently classifying their services under SAC 996601 under rent-a-cab operator and paying GST at the rate of 5% without availing facility of ITC. They have entered into agreement with Amazon to provide motor vehicles having seating capacity of less than 13 persons for transportation of its employees. Similarly, they are also providing renting of motor vehicles for transporting the employees of a SEZ unit. They have sought advance ruling as regards admissibility of ITC for goods or services used in providing the service of renting of motor vehicles. Their main contention is that as per provision contained in section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, ITC on motor vehicles having approved seating capacity of less than 13 persons is restricted except when motor vehicles are used for further supply of such motor vehicles. It is being pleaded that as per definition of supply given under section 7 of the CGST Act, supply includes rental, lease and so the activity of renting of motor vehicles is covered by the exception carved out in the law. Moreover, it is also pleaded that ultimately, what is rendered by it is the service of transportation of passengers which is also covered by the exception and so merely because the agreement is entered for renting of motor vehicles to the company, it cannot lead to classification of the said service as lease rentals rather than transportation of passenger service. As regards supply of renting of motor vehicles made to SEZ unit is concerned, it is stated that it is taxable supply being zero rated supply and the ITC is available on the same also. The applicant also pointed that section 17(5)(a)(B) permits ITC on motor vehicles used for making taxable supplies of “transportation of passengers” and does not distinguish between a service provider of transporting passengers directly or engaged in transporting employees of an organisation by hiring or letting. Reliance was placed on the decision given in the case of M/S NARSINGH TRANSPORT by AAR Madhya Pradesh. The counsel for the department contended that the only exceptions for availing ITC on motor vehicles is further supply of such motor vehicle, transportation of passengers or imparting training or driving on such motor vehicles. As the renting/hiring of motor vehicles is not covered under exception, ITC is not available to the applicant. It was also pleaded that as applicant has opted for paying GST @5% without ITC facility, they are unable to avail any ITC. The AAR concluded that after perusing the agreements, it is found that the supply is restricted to the vehicle with drivers. The usage, i.e., Trip Schedules, routes, etc are done by the Transport team of the Vendor. The applicant is responsible for supplying the services of 'Rent-a -cab', wherein the vehicle with the driver is supplied to the vendor, who uses such services received from the applicants for the transporting requirement of their staff/officers. Hence, the service provided is “renting of vehicles with operators” falling under SAC 9966. As regards contention that the activity is covered under “further supply of such motor vehicles”, AAR held that the phrase means that ITC is available if the motor vehicles is sold as it is and the activity of renting/leasing cannot be considered as supply of such motor vehicle. Moreover, as the decision regarding route, nodal points for transport, staff to be plied etc. istaken by the Amazon company, the activity of transportation is being carried out by Amazon company and not the applicant. The applicant is only engaged in renting/leasing of motor vehicles which is not eligible for ITC under any of the exceptions to section 17(5). On similar analogy, AAR concluded that no ITC could be availed even for transporting employees of the SEZ unit. The above cited decision delves deep into the interpretation as regards exceptions to admissibility of ITC on motor vehicles having approved seating capacity of less than 13 persons. As per section 17(5), ITC on such motor vehicles is restricted except when used for further supply of such motor vehicles or used for transportation of passengers. The reasoning adopted for the case being not covered under further supply of such motor vehicles is convincing. However, the contention of the applicant as regards admissibility of ITC as it is used for transportation of passengers appears to be logical. If the provision of section 17(5) is interpreted literally, ITC is inadmissible on motor vehicles except when they are used for making taxable supply of transportation of passengers. In the present case, although technically the applicant is providing renting of motor vehicle service but if ultimately the said service is being used for transportation of passengers, the benefit of ITC should be allowed. The intention of the government for carving out exceptions is that the persons engaged in business of supplying motor vehicles or ancillary services should be allowed to avail ITC with respect to motor vehicles. In our opinion, observing the intention of the legislature, merely because there is no specific entry for the activity of renting/leasing of motor vehicles, the genuineness of availing ITC cannot be ignored. It is hoped that suitable amendment is carried out in the exceptions so as to commensurate the provision with the intention of the law.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com