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 taxability of leasing of trucks without operator to GTA 105/2020-21

GST Update on taxability of leasing of trucks without operator to GTA 105/2020-21
Services being provided by or to Goods Transport Agency has always been the talk of the town as these are the basic services which every business require. In this update we shall be discussing AAR ruling in the case of M/S ISHAN RESINS & PAINTS LIMITED wherein service of leasing trucks or tankers without operator is being provided to GTA by the applicant. The application was filed to know whether the supply attracts exemption under serial no. 22(b) of the Notification No. 12/2017 CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. It was also questioned that if the applicant is not eligible for exemption, then what will be the appropriate classification and GST rate applicable on the transaction. It was also inquired whether credit of input tax paid on purchasing of motor vehicles is admissible or not.
The applicant informed that the lessee will enjoy possession of the vehicle and provide the operator, bear the cost of fuel, maintenance, insurance etc. It was contended that Sl. No. 22 of the exemption notification, the relevant portion of which is being reiterated below uses the term hire which is different from leasing out a vehicle without operator where the control and possession is transferred to the lessee.
Sl. No. Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff) Description of Services Rate (per cent.) Condition
22 Heading 9966 or Heading 9973 Services by way of giving on hire – (a) to a state transport undertaking, a motor vehicle meant to carry more than twelve passengers; or (b) to a goods transport agency, a means of transportation of goods. Nil Nil
 
The applicant argued that hiring mentioned in the above entry does not include renting or leasing of vehicles when possession and control of the vehicle are passed on to the hirer. As the applicant intends to transfer the possession and control to the lessee, the above entry of Exemption Notification will not apply. The applicant further contends that the above transaction shall fall under Entry No. 17(iii) of the rate notification no. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017 which reads as “Transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.”
After hearing the contention of applicant, referring to the definition of ‘hiring’, Advance Ruling had come to a conclusion that the transaction being discussed shall be classifiable under SAC 997311 as leasing or rental services concerning transport equipment without operator. This shall be taxable as per Entry No. 17(iii) of the rate notification no. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017 as the applicant intends to transfer the goods along with the right to use them. Reliance has been placed on the judgment issued by Uttarakhand High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE VS SACHIN MALHOTRA 12015 (37) STR 684 (UTTARAKHAND).
Answering the second question, the AAR has discussed that Section 17(5)(a) of the GST Act does not allow input tax credit on inward supply of motor vehicles of a specific category (those meant for transportation of persons having seating capacity not exceeding thirteen persons). The restriction does not apply to the goods transport vehicles.
After analysing the above ruling, we submit that hiring, leasing and renting are three different terms which have a very thin line of difference among them and it is very important to know their exact meaning in order to determine the applicability of tax. Hence, there is dire need for the government to elucidate on these terms.  Now the question arises is what would be the tax implication if the applicant gives the vehicle along with the operator and also includes the cost of fuel in the services being provided by him? In such case, whether the transaction would be considered as that of hire and eligible for exemption under serial no. 22(b) of the notification no. 12/2017 CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. In our opinion, in such case, the transaction would be an independent transaction of providing transportation of goods service by the applicant and consequently, reference may be made to the recent advance ruling pronounced in the case of M/s Liberty Translines discussed in our GST update no. 91/2020-21wherein it was held that if the services of GTA are sub-contracted, the sub-contractor cannot be considered as providing the services of GTA. It was held that the sub-contractor would not be liable to pay GST as it would be exempt because transportation services of goods by road other than through GTA is exempt.
 
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.
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