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

Update On ITC on supply of Medical Facility to employees by employer

Update On ITC on supply of Medical Facility to employees by employer
Update On ITC on supply of Medical Facility to employees by employer
 
In this update we shall discuss about allowability of ITC on supply of Medicines and medical facilities to employees and pensioners. M/s Chennai port trust have preferred application seeking advance ruling on the following questions:-
  1. Whether they are entitled to take credit of input tax charges on the inward supply of medicines which are used or intended to use in the course or furtherance of business of the applicant?
The applicant submits that they are engaged in supply of port services and incidental supply of goods like disposal of discarded assets. They are maintaining an in-house hospital for providing health and medical cover exclusively to their employees and pensioners. They are governed by two regulations under Section 124(11) read with section 132(i) of Major Port Trusts Act 1963, which are (i) Chennai Port Trust Employees' (Contributory Outdoor and Indoor Medical Benefit After retirement) Regulations, 1989; (ii) Chennai Port Trust Employees' (Medical Attendance in the Trust's Hospital and Reimbursement of Hospital Charges) Regulations 1994.The hospital is only a cost centre and the inward supplies of medicines are provided only to the employees and pensioners free of cost.
Applicant Submissions:-The term “health service” is not defined in the Act or rules. The health and medical cover provide by the applicant will not get covered under definition of “Service” under section 2(102) of the act as no separate consideration is charged. Hence, the ITC for these inward supplies are not blocked credits under section 17(5)(b)(i) of the CGST Act,2017. These medicines cannot be considered as “goods used for personal consumption” since the cost of these medicines are borne by us as a part of service contract with its employees and pensioners as held in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (p) Ltd. V. CCE (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 378/51 GST126 (Mum-CESTAT). The medicines are used in course of furtherance of business as per section 16 and are not blocked credit under section 17(5) (g) , consequently the applicant is eligible for ITC on inward supply of medicines under section 16(1) subject to fulfilment of rules 36 to 45 of CGST Rules.
Respondent’s Submissions:-The respondent submits that the activity of the applicant is providing port services and sale of disposal of discarded assets. Providing medical cover to their employees and pensioners are not part of their business activity and providing medical facility is being done only under service rules. Moreover, the medicines supplied to their employees and pensioners are free of supply. In view of the above fact the applicant is not eligible to claim ITC on inward purchase of medicines to be supplied to their employees for the reason that this activity is not their part and parcel of their activity and supply of medicines without any consideration amount to free supply, hence the applicant is not eligible for ITC.
Advance Ruling Authority’s View: -The medicines and medical facilities are provided by the applicant to its employees for their personal use. Therefore as per section 17(5) (g) of CGST/ TNGST Act, ITC is not available for the medicine that the applicant is procuring the consumption of its employees and pensioners and their dependents. The fact of who pays for the medicines here is irrelevant to the usage of the said medicines. They are used by the employees and dependents and hence are for personal consumption and the applicant is ineligible to take ITC on the inward supply of medicines used to provide health facilities to its employees in its hospital.
Ruling: -The applicant is not entitled to take credit of input tax charged on the inward supply of medicines which are used to provide medical facilities to the employees, pensioners and dependents in the in house hospital.
Normally, the businessman provides health care service to employees only due to the fact that it is required as service contract. These are in furtherance of business only. Hence, credit should be allowed. The expenditure is allowed in Income Tax also. Hence, it should be allowed and it will create credit chain also. There will not be cascading effect also.
Further, the transaction between employer and employee has been matter of dispute only. Firstly, in this row was the reimbursement of expenses by employer to employee was subject to reverse charge when unregistered had provided the service. Whether the service provided by employees of one branch to another branch in another state will be liable to GST. These points should be clarified by CBEC so that unnecessary litigation can be avoided.
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