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

PJ/Case Law/2016-2017/3455

Whether recovery of food expenses from employees for the canteen service provided by the applicant/company comes under the definition of outward supplies and is taxable under Goods & Services Tax Act
Case:CALTECH POLYMERS PVT. LTD.
Citation:2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 350 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue: Whether recovery of food expenses from employees for the canteen service provided by the applicant/company comes under the definition of outward supplies and is taxable under Goods & Services Tax Act.
Brief facts: The issues involved in the appeals are filed by M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Malappuram (hereinafter called the applicant or the Company). The applicant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of footwearhave filed an application,on 30.12.2017  for advance ruling under Section 2(17) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant has submitted that they are providing canteen services exclusively for their employees. They are incurring the canteen running expenses and are recovering the same from its employees without any profit margin.
Applicant’s contention: The applicant has further submitted that the service provided to the employee is not being carried out as a business activity. It is according to the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. As per Section 46 of the said Act, any factory employing more than 250 workers is required to provide canteen facility to its employees. The applicant detailed the work as follows :-
(a)        The space for the canteen is provided by the Company, inside the factory premises.
(b)        The cook is employed by the Company and is paid monthly salary.
(c)        The vegetables and other items required for preparing the food items are purchased by the Company directly from the suppliers.
(d)        The number of times, the Canteen facility is availed, each day, by the employees is tracked on a daily basis.
(e)        Based on the details above, the expenditure incurred by the Company on the vegetables and other items required for preparation of food is recovered from the employees, as a deduction from their monthly salary, in proportion to the foods consumed by them.
(f)        The company does not make any profit while recovering the cost of the food items, from the employees. Only the actual cost incurred for the food items is recovered from the employees.
The company is of the opinion that this activity does not fall within the scope of ‘supply’, as the same is not in the course or furtherance of its business. The company is only facilitating the supply of food to the employees, which is a statutory requirement, and is recovering only the actual expenditure incurred in connection with the food supply, without making any profit.
The company also referred to the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 issued by the Government of India whereby services in relation to supply of food or beverages by a canteen maintained in a factory covered under the Factories Act, 1948 was exempted under the Service Tax Law.
The applicant, in their application dated 30-12-2017, raised the following questions to be determined by the authority for Advance Ruling.
“Whether reimbursement of food expenses from employees for the canteen provided by company comes under the definition of outward supplies as taxable under GST Act.”
Reasoning of Judgement:The authorised representative of the applicant was heard in the matter and the contentions raised were examined. It is true that in the pre-GST period, vide Sl. No. 19 and 19A of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 as amended by Notification No. 14/2013-S.T., dated 22-10-2013 the ‘services provided in relation to serving of food or beverages by a canteen maintained in a factory covered under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), including a canteen having the facility of air-conditioning or central air-heating at any time during the year’ was exempted from service tax. But, there is no similar provision under the GST laws.
The term “business” is defined in Section 2(17) of the GST Act, which reads like this :-
“business” includes :-
(a) any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit :
(b) any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sub-clause (a); ...
From the plane reading of the definition of “business”, it can be safely concluded that the supply of food by the applicant to its employees would definitely come under clause (b) of Section 2(17) as a transaction incidental or ancillary to the main business.
Schedule II to the GST Act describes the activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services. As per Clause 6 of the Schedule, the following composite supply is declared as supply of service.
“supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (other than alcoholic liquor for human consumption), where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.”
Even though there is no profit as claimed by the applicant on the supply of food to its employees, there is “supply” as provided in Section 7(1)(a) of the GST Act, 2017. The applicant would definitely come under the definition of “Supplier” as provided in sub-section (105) of Section 2 of the GST Act, 2017.
The term ‘consideration’ is defined in Section 2(31) of the GST Act, 2017 which is extracted below :
‘consideration’ in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes,-
(a)        any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government;
(b)        the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government :
            Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply.
Since the applicant recovers the cost of food from its employees, there is consideration as defined in Section 2(31) of the GST Act, 2017.
Decision: The application has been disposed off.
 
Comment: It is hereby clarified that recovery of food expenses from the employees for the canteen services provided by company would come under the definition of ‘outward supply’ and therefore, taxable as a supply of service under GST.
 
 Prepared by: Bhavika Kanjani
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