Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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