Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update on 262 transportation of staff by non-ac busses of company

GST Update on 262 transportation of staff by non-ac busses of company
The issue as regards to transportation of staff by non-ac busses by employer company has been a subject matter of discussion since inception of the GST regime. The never-ending debate and litigations on availability of exemption in such cases increase the difficulty levels of the taxpayer manifolds. There had been Advance Ruling on similar lines rendered by Maharashtra AAR in the case of M/S SHAILESH RAMSUNDER PANDE wherein the assessee was having confusion as regards to taxability in case non-AC buses are used for transportation of staff under contract carriage. In the said case, the applicant entered into an agreement with Ratan Indian Power Limited (RIPL) for the aforementioned transaction wherein the buses will be operated strictly as per the instructions of RIPL. It was concluded that since the consideration of service is charged from RIPL and not the passengers, the subject activity falls under “renting of motor vehicles” and therefore, is taxable. Therefore, it was stated that the essential ingredient of contract carriage is that it piles under a contract for fixed set of passengers and does not allow passenger to board at their will. Hence, AAR ruled that the services provided by the applicant falls under renting of motor vehicles under Serial No. 10 of the notification no. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 attracting GST at the rate of 5% without ITC under Reverse Charge Mechanism or 12 % GST with ITC facility under Forward Charge Mechanism. The above advance ruling is in alignment with the recent CBIC Circular No. 177/09/2022-TRU dated 03.08.2022 clarifying the said issue. The analysis of the clarification issued is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
 
As per serial no. 15(b) of notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 exempts “transport of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings, by non-air conditioned contract carriage, other than radio taxi, for transport of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire.”
It is clarified that “charter” or “hire” are excluded from the above exemption entry where the renter defined how and when the vehicle will be operated, determining schedules, routes and other operational consideration meaning thereby that the exemption entry would apply in case transportation takes place over pre-determined route and as per pre-determined schedule. Hence, no exemption will be available in case contract carriage is hired for a period of time and the recipient at its discretion is free to decide the manner in which route is decided and schedule is determined. To illustrate, in case a private company arranges transportation facility for its staff wherein the non air conditioned buses are being used as per the directions of the private company, GST will be payable and the exemption will not be available.
 
It is worth noting that the exemption is only with respect to non-air conditioned contract carriage. If the service provider is engaged in transportation of passengers in air conditioned contract carriage, GST will be payable on the same. Further, another issue can be what will be the consequences in case nominal amount is recovered from the employees for usage of transportation facility in a non-ac conditioned bus. In this respect, the situation is clear wherein no GST shall be attracted in such a scenario due to employer-employee relationship which is excluded from the ambit of Schedule III of CGST Act, 2017 and considering the fact that the transaction is mere perquisite offered by employer and is not service provided in course or furtherance of business.
 
Aligning with the above, another clarification is also issued by the CBIC in line with recommendation of 47th GST Council meeting wherein it is clarified that n case of renting of motor vehicle for transportation of passenger which is hired by body corporate for a particular period of time with the directions of operation of the vehicle to be given by body corporate, the said services shall fall under “renting of motor vehicle” and will be covered under RCM wherein the tax shall be paid by the body corporate. On the contrary, if in case the body corporate avails passenger transportation services over pre-determined routes on pre-determined schedules, it will be classifiable under “passenger transport services” liable to GST under forward charge and the body corporate shall not be liable to pay tax under RCM.
 
The above clarificatory circular will be helpful for the taxpayers in order to avoid existing litigations and confusions in the minds of taxpayers. Circulars like these are anticipated in future as well which will prove to be useful for the taxpayers.
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