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 ITC AVAILABILITY ON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AVAILED FOR EMPLOYEES 139/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON ITC AVAILABILITY ON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AVAILED FOR EMPLOYEES 139/2020-21

The restrictions as regards availment of input tax credit on hiring of motor vehicles has created confusion in the minds of employers regarding admissibility of input tax credit on transportation services availed for the commutation of their employees from third parties. This issue was recently raised before the Hon’ble Maharashtra AAR in the case of M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. which is the subject matter of discussion in our present update.

In this case, applicant had engaged third party service provider to provide transportation facility to its employees in non-air-conditioned buses having seating capacity of more than 13 persons. To ensure that transportation facility is used only by authorized persons/employees, applicant is issuing pass to employees and nominal amount is recovered on monthly basis. The applicant has sought an advance ruling to determine availability of ITC on GST charged by service provider on hiring of bus/motor vehicle for transportation of employees and applicability of GST on such nominal amount recovered from employees. It also sought that if ITC is available, whether it will be restricted to the extent of cost borne by the applicant.

The AAR observed that with effect from 1-2-2019, section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017 has been amended to allow ITC on leasing, renting or hiring of motor vehicles, for transportation of persons having approved seating capacity of more than thirteen persons (including the driver). Since in the given case, the applicant is using non-air conditioned buses having seating capacity of more than 13 persons, it shall be eligible for ITC but only after 1-2-2019.              

On question of chargeability of GST on nominal amount charged from employees, AAR observed that once employee ceases to be in employment with applicant, he/she is not authorized to use the transportation facility. In other words, employer-employee relationship is must to avail this facility and the facility can be treated as perquisite given by the applicant to its employees. As per clause 1 of the Schedule III of the CGST Act, services by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment shall he treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services. Since the applicant is not supplying any services to its employees, in view of Schedule III, GST is not applicable on the nominal amounts recovered by applicants from its employees.                          

Further, on question of restriction of ITC to the extent of cost borne by the applicant employer, AAR referred the decision given by the Hon'ble High court of Bombay in the case of CCE, NAGPUR V. ULTRATECH CEMENTS LTD. and held that ITC is not admissible to applicant on the portion of cost borne by employee and thus, ITC will be restricted to the extent of cost borne by the applicant.

The ruling is no doubt favourable to the assessee but we wish to add our point regarding non-taxability of GST on nominal charges recovered by employer from the employees for transportation facility provided to them. Reference may be made to AAR ruling in the case of M/S. POSCO INDIA PUNE PROCESSING CENTER PRIVATE LIMITED[2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 351 (A.A.R. - GST) andM/s ION TRADING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED wherein it was held that premium amount recovered for making payment to insurance company for providing mediclaim facilities by employer to its employees cannot be treated supply of service by employer under GST law because employer is not engaged in providing insurance services and the said activity is not in course or furtherance of its business so as to levy GST. It appears that this reasoning is convincing and was missed while ruling that the amount recovered from employees for transportation facility is not liable to GST. It is hoped that similar advance ruling is pronounced for other facilities provided by employers such as canteen facilities which is also in terms of employment contract.

 This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
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