Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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