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

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