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

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3523

Whether ITC would be available in respect of GST paid for hotel stay in case of rent free accommodation provided to MD and GM?.......
Case:M/s Posco India Pune Processing Centre Private Limited
Citation:AAR no. GST-ARA-3/2018-19/B-110 dated 07.09.2018
Issue:
  • Whether ITC would be available in respect of GST paid for hotel stay in case of rent free accommodation provided to MD and GM?
  • Whether invoice for quality claim raised by the Company on POSCO Daewoo Corporation located in Korea will be treated as ‘export of service’?
  • Whether recovery of 50% of the Parents Health Insurance expenses from employee in respect of insurance provided by the Company amounts to ‘supply of service'?
 
Brief facts:
M/s. POSCO-India Pune Processing Center Private Limited (‘the Company’) is South Korea based company located at Talegaon, MIDC, Pune. The Company is primarily engaged in distribution of steel coils. The POSCO Group Company from overseas has deputed a Managing Director (‘MD’) and General Manager (‘GM’) in India for looking after the business in India. In the present case, both the above key personnel have relocated to India without family. Therefore, as per the terms of deputation, instead of making payment in cash, the MD and the GM are provided with perquisite in the nature of rent-free accommodation. The MD and the GM are provided accommodation in a hotel and the cost of the same is borne by the Applicant. It is included as perquisites in the salary as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Company had imported goods from POSCO Daewoo Corporation, Korea and availed ITC of IGST on the same. Subsequently, the Company sold the goods to its customer under the cover of tax invoice on payment of applicable GST. Subsequent to the sale, it was observed that the goods were defective and therefore the Company raised a credit note to its customer and the customer raised a debit note.  As per the terms of the contract between POSCO Daewoo and the Company, the Company was required to charge back the loss incurred because of quality issue. Accordingly, the Company raised a tax invoice against which it received payment in foreign currency.
It was submitted by the Company that it is in their practice to provide mediclaim cover to the employees as well as their parents. Initially, the Company pays the entire premium along with taxes and then recovers 50% of the premium from the employees on a monthly basis.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:The AAR has observed that the rent free accommodation provided to the MD and GM was for their personal comforts. Therefore no ITC can be allowed in respect of hotel stay / loading – boarding / accommodation service provided to MD and GM of the Company in accordance with the provisions of section 17(5)(g) of the CGST Act, 2017 which restricts credit of expenses used for personal consumption.
The AAR has observed that the Company has not provided entire details in respect of the transaction. It was submitted by the Company that post the importation of goods, Input Tax credit of IGST was availed and then the goods were sold to its customer, which were found to be defective. Accordingly, credit notes and debit notes were exchanged between the Company and its customer. It has not been stated by the Company as to what is the status of the defective goods or the credit availed on IGST. As long as the goods are with the customer, it is them who are tolerating the act and not the Company. In light of such unanswered questions, it was noted by the Authority that complete details regarding the transaction have not been submitted and therefore they have refrained from answering to this question.
In regards to recovery of 50% of insurance premium from its employees, the AAR had observed that the Company is creating fiction of providing health insurance to their employees only to avail 100% ITC of payment made to the insurance company. The AAR has ruled that the recovery of such insurance premium from the employees cannot be treated as supply and consequently, the Company would not be eligible for ITC paid on such expenses to the insurance company.
 
Comment:  There were the two contradicting rulings given by two different State AARs on the same issue of – “employer providing services to employees and whether the amount recovered for the same shall be treated as a supply” within the time span of March and September 2018.
In both the cases i.e. Caltech Polymers Pvt Ltd (ORDER No.CT/531118-C3 DATED 26/03/2018) and the discussed case, we hope that Revenue generation may be considered and ruling is given based on the same. It is said so because in the first case, recovery of food expenses from the employees for the canteen services provided by company would come under the definition of ‘outward supply‘  as defined in Section 2(83) and therefore taxable as supply of service. And in the second case recovery of Parents health insurance expenses from employees does not amount to “supply of service” under the GST laws and the applicant cannot avail ITC on GST charged by insurance company.
Moreover, it is been clearly evident from the facts that MD and GM have been provided with the rent free accomdation since they relocated in India, and they should be treated as part of perquisites and therefore, ITC should be admissible.
Prepared by:  Adit Gupta
 
 
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