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 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