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

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