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 on Admissibility of Input Tax Credit On Repairs Of Motor Vehicles

GST Update on Admissibility of Input Tax Credit On Repairs Of Motor Vehicles

Input tax credit on the motor vehicles has been restrictive one in the Central Excise and service tax regime as well as in the present GST regime. Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the list of blocked credits and this lists allows the ITC on the motor vehicles on conditional basis. The relevant part of section 17(5) reads as follows:-

"Input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:—
(a) Motor vehicles and other conveyances except when they are used––
(i) for making the following taxable supplies, namely:—
(A) Further supply of such vehicles or conveyances; or
(B) Transportation of passengers; or
(C) Imparting training on driving, flying, navigating such vehicles or conveyances;
(ii) For transportation of goods;"

The analysis of above portion of the section 17(5) makes it clear that the ITC on motor vehicles and other conveyances is allowed on conditional basis. The language of section 17(5) as highlighted above uses the phrase "in respect of". This phrase is not defined or analyzed anywhere in the GST law. Further, we have not found a single case law analyzing this phrase.
However, earlier under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the definition of "inputs" had the similar words "in relation to". A lot of case laws were decided by analyzing this phrase by holding that the term "in relation to" is very wide and covers all goods which are either directly or indirectly used in manufacture of final products. This analogy was drawn in the case of NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MADURAI [2016 (344) E.L.T. 832 (Mad.)] and COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR Versus ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. [2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.)]. On the basis of a number of decisions decided on the basis of analogy drawn by hon'ble High Courts in these cases, credit was allowed on variety of goods that were either directly or indirectly used in manufacture of final products.

Under existing GST regime, the phrase used is "in respect of". This phrase has neither been defined anywhere nor any case law is available on the same. Further, if we consider the general meaning of this phrase, it is treated as synonym of "as regards", "in terms of", "with respect to" or "in accordance with", etc. These words are more or less used interchangeably. Thus, one can interpret that the phrase "in respect of" can be used as a synonym of "in relation to". Therefore, the decisions given in respect of phrase "in relation to" will hold good in this case also. If this interpretation is taken, we can conclude that the clause (1) of section 17(5) of CGST Act will be deemed to be wider in scope in order to restrict each and every types of ITC that is related to any "motor vehicle", i.e. to say, it will deny the ITC on purchase of motor vehicle as well as repairs and maintenance and any other expenses related to motor vehicle.

However, another stream of views is there interpreting the term "in respect of" as contained in section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017. It has been interpreted that the phrase "in respect of" is very restrictive in nature and it will cover only the ITC involved in purchase of motor vehicle. All the other expenses will be eligible to ITC. This interpretation is based upon the fact that repairs and maintenance of motor vehicles is nowhere denied in section 17(5) or any other provision of CGST Act, 2017. When the ITC is not specifically denied, it is allowed on repairs and maintenance of motor vehicle; as opined by a stream of experts.

It is worthwhile to mention here that the first view of treating the phrase "in respect of" in conjunction with the term "in relation to" is appears more feasible. The reason behind this is that the restrictions contained in the section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017 are more or less similar to the exclusions contained in the rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention here that under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; credit of expenses incurred on motor vehicles like insurance, repairs and maintenance, etc. of motor vehicle was specifically denied under clause (B) and (BA) of definition of input service if the motor vehicle did not fall in the definition of "capital goods" as given in the rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, even the other provisions and restrictions regarding the availment of credit in GST regime has been carried forward with original spirit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, in our view, looking the drafting of the said section 17(5) read with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; the term "in respect of" should be interpreted in broader sense and the ITC of expenses related to motor vehicles like repairs and maintenance, etc. should not be allowed.
The views of all our readers as well as of experts are invited so that we can reach to a conclusion.

You can visit us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at our facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/

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