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 taxability of sub-contracting of GTA services 91/2020-21

GST Update on taxability of sub-contracting of GTA services 91/2020-21
The GTA service providers have the option to pay GST under forward charge at the rate of 12% and avail input tax credit. It is also clear that if the GTA opts for paying GST under forward charge at the rate of 12% with availing the facility of input tax credit, the said option is to be exercised for all the transactions. It is not possible for GTA to declare certain supplies under reverse charge mechanism and certain supplies under forward charge. The issue regarding the GST implication on the transaction of sub-contracting the services of GTA was recently considered by the Maharashtra AAR in the case of M/s Liberty Translines and the outcome of this advance ruling is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.
 
The applicant is engaged in providing services as GTA and has been appointed by M/s POSCO to provide service of transportation of goods by road for its clients. In simple words, the applicant is sub-contractor for providing GTA services to the clients of M/s POSCO.  Hence, the applicant seeks advance ruling on the following questions:-
  1. Whether the services rendered by the applicant to M/s POSCO as sub contractor will be classified as GTA Service?
  2.  Whether assesses can charge GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism in terms of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 as M/s POSCO is also charging GST @ 12% from its clients?
  3. Whether recipient of service, M/s POSCO would be eligible to claim Input Tax Credit of the invoices issued by the applicant under forward charge mechanism?
  4. Whether is it correct to have two GTA Service Providers and two consignment notes for the same movement of goods?
Goods Transport Agency is not defined in CGST Act, 2017 but the meaning of GTA is given by way of an explanation to Entry 9(iii) of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 which reads as follows:-
 
Explanation to Entry 9(iii):- “goods transport agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called.
 
It was concluded that main contractor, M/s POSCO is providing road transport service to the ultimate customer and is issuing consignment notes and so falls under the definition of GTA.  Main Contractor is not the owner of the vehicle but he has appointed a sub-contractor to provide services of transportation of goods by road. However, the applicant cannot be treated as GTA as the applicant is truck owner and has providing services of hiring of trucks to M/s POSCO which is exempt from levy of GST.
 
There is a difference between a GTA and a person who owns truck commonly known as transporter who may give transportation service either by himself or through a transport agent i.e. GTA. It was held that a consignment note is a necessary qualification to be considered as a GTA as per the explanation in Notification 11/2017 (CT) Rate dated 28thJune 2017 . In the transportation industry, where one transporter has takes the help of another transporter by way of sub-contracting the work and the sub contractor bills to main contractor for sub contracting service. It is very clear in the GST Law that who issues consignment note will be treated as goods transport agency. Main Contactor issues consignment note and therefore only main contractor is a GTA for this transaction. Any services by way of transportation of goods by road other than through GTA would be exempt supply as per the notification no. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated. 22.08.2017.
 
In the present case, assessee is providing the transportation service but not as GTA but only as a truck owner to Main Contractor. Therefore, it was held that the services of applicant are exempt and there is no need to charge GST @12% under forward charge mechanism. 
As regards the regarding admissibility to input tax credit to the recipient, it was held that the question pertains to M/s POSCO and so the AAR refrained from answering the same. Similarly, as regards the question whether there can be two consignment notes for the same transaction, the AAR denied from commenting as the said question is outside the ambit of scope of advance ruling as prescribed in section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
It is pertinent to mention here that in frequently asked question (FAQ) related to registration, it has been clarified that registration is not required in case where services of GTA are being provided to another GTA as services by way of giving on hire, a means of transportation of goods to a GTA are exempt from tax vide entry no. 22 of Notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017.
 
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