Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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