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 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