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 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