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/2018-2019/3533

Whether the GST paid on the cars provided to different customers on lease rent will be available to the applicant as Input Tax Credit in terms of Section 17(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017’ ?

Case :M/s. Narsingh Transport(AAR GST Madhya Pradesh)

Citation: :  Case Number-25/2018 and Order dated on 18.02.19

Issue:Whether the GST paid on the cars provided to different customers on lease rent will be available to the applicant as Input Tax Credit in terms of Section 17(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017’?

Brief Facts:  The Applicant is registered with the Department for providing “Goods Transport Agency Service” it is availing option to pay tax @12% and availing ITC facility on vehicle and their spares used for providing GTA service as well as on inward services namely insurance of vehicles and repair and maintenance of vehicles.

Appellant Contention:
The Applicant is providing “Goods Transport Agency Services” and is charging GST on outward supply of goods transport agency service @ 12 %.The inward supply of the goods and services on which full ITC is being claimed by the applicant is for maintenance repairing service being used for smooth running of vehicles meant for providing GTA service and for Spare & accessories goods being purchased for maintenance of vehicles.
The applicant has expressly purchased cars for furtherance of their business i.e. for providing to other entities on a monthly lease rent under proper lease agreement and will not claim depreciation on these vehicles under Income Tax Act.1961
Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgment:
Section 16. Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit. — (1) Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person.
Section 17 (5)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub-section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely :-
1. After GST Act amendment 2018 —
Motor vehicle for transportation of person having approved seating capacity of not more than thirteen person(including the driver), except when they are used for making the following taxable supplies one of which is  for further supply of such motor vehicles or
2. Before the above amendment
Motor vehicles and other conveyances except when they are used  for making the following taxable supplies one of which is further supply of such vehicles or conveyances
Thus it is absolutely clear that in respect of motor vehicles, except in certain circumstances, the Input Tax Credit is not available. In the present case before us is that the Applicant is providing cars on Lease Rent to their customers for carrying passengers and hence not covered by the exception as provided in clause (B){transportation of passengers) and (C){imparting training, driving….etc.}of sub section 5(a) after the amendment and in clause (B) and (C) of sub section5 (a)(i) before the amendment as well as in Sub section 5 (a) (ii) of Section 17 before the amendment.
Since “taxable supply” & “further supply” finding a place in the said sub-sections are of great importance in this case .As per Section7- definition of “supply” includes All forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.
It is found that  Applicant is supplying goods i.e. cars and services i.e. lease rent services against a monthly monetary consideration in the course of applicant’s business in taxable territory and supplies are taxable in nature and Applicant is registered under GST Act.
In the light of the facts as discussed, the activities carried by the Applicant regarding supply of tax paid motor vehicles on monthly lease rent plus Tax as applicable to their customer under a proper agreement properly satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 17(5) (a) (i) (A) before the amendment and under subsection 5(a)(A) after the amendment to make it eligible for availment of input tax credit on motor vehicle. The applicant has complied with the all the requirements for filing this application as lay down under the law. We therefore admit the application for consideration on merits. . Thereby the appellant is entitled to claim INPUT TAX CREDIT.
 
Decision: Application allowed.
 
Comment: The Gist of the case is that the applicant has purchased cars which have been leased for furtherance of business. The applicant is of opinion of availing Input tax credit on cars purchased being leased as a furtherance of business.  It is also necessary to mention that the cars, which the applicant intends to lease, or has already leased, should be registered with the transport authority in the capacity of commercial use. In case the vehicle is owned and used by the Applicant for his own use, the facility of ITC shall seize to be available to them. After studying applicable provisions the judgment is in favor of applicant entitling him the benefit of input tax credit.   
 
Prepared by:SANDHYA DAIYA

 

 
 
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