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/2020-2021/3571

Whether the parking lot services provided by the Contractor appointed by the Market Committee, which is a Government Authority is exempt under Notification No.12/2017 as the parking lot activity is covered under Article 243 of the Constitution?
Pushpa Rani Pabbi (GST AAR Punjab) Advance Ruling No. AAR/GST/PB/011 dated 06.09.219
Brief Facts-The applicant has been appointed as a contractor for providing parking lot services at the place of the Market Committee at Jalandhar.
Issue-Whether the parking lot services provided by the Contractor appointed by the Market Committee, which is a Government Authority is exempt under Notification No.12/2017 as the parking lot activity is covered under Article 243 of the Constitution?
Applicant Contention- Applicant contended that since they are providing Parking lot services as a part of the functions entrusted to the market committee under Article 243W read with Twelfth schedule of the Constitution, therefore, the activity of maintenance of parking lot services provided by them as a contractor of the market committee is covered under Notification No. 12/2017 and is therefore NIL rated.
Moreover, they have been employed by the market committee to provide services of parking lot at the place of market committee on their behalf. Thus in a way they act as an agent of the market committee.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court though in different context in Larsen And Toubro Limited and Anr. vs State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.
Though the market Committee (Mandi Board) primarily deals with the activities relating to agricultural produce but the maintenance of parking lots at Market Committee’s place to facilitate the agriculture should also be considered as part of other support services related to agriculture covered under SAC code 998619, which is also taxable at NIL rate under Notification No. 12/2017.
Reasoning by the authority and decision- According to 243Q of the Constitution of India, only Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations are considered as Municipalities. However, certain urban areas, called industrial townships, an industrial establishment may provide municipal services and a municipality may not be constituted in that urban area. Further, in view of the above legal provisions and as clarified by the FAQ’s issued in respect of government services, the Mandi Board does not fall under the definition of local authority. A definition has to be read in its fulfilment and not in parts or out of context to suit a particular purpose.
The functions of Mandi Board is to establish markets for efficient marketing of agricultural produce by providing modern facilities in the mandis and to enforce the provisions of the Act, Rules Bye-laws framed there under. It also includes to establish a market therein providing such facilities for persons visiting it in connection with the purchase, sale, storage, weighment and processing of Agricultural produce concerned. The Board may from time to time direct these market committees to control and regulate the admission to the markets. Market Committees are service rendering agencies and their main source of income is market fee.
Mandi Board has not been established by the State Government for providing Parking Lot services to the people. It is purely discretionary and optional of the part of Mandi Board depending on their business requirements. It is pertinent to mention that functions entrusted to Mandi Board are not the functions entrusted to a Municipality.
Further, on perusal of agreement between the applicant and Mandi Board, it is established that the applicant has been appointed as Contractor for providing parking lot services at the place of Market Committee at Jalandhar for an amount of Rs. 2,72,97,000/- and the applicant is to recover the said amount by charging the vehicles entering the Market Committee area on rates ranging from Rs. 10/- for a two wheeler to Rs. 150/- for a Trolla, as fixed by the Market Committee. Thus, the Market Committee is earning revenue from the persons entering the parking area.
Moreover, it has been consistently held that any statutory authority which works on business principals, the fees collected by it cannot be considered as statutory fee. Only in case where the fee is collected towards sovereign functions and deposited with the Government revenue qualify to be outside the levy of any tax.
In the present case, although the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board was established on 26th May, 1961 under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, its function cannot be considered as sovereign functions and accordingly the parking fees collected by them through the applicant does not acquire the nature of statutory fee so as to be outside the scope of any tax. Thus, the parking fees collected by the applicant are not in nature of statutory fees.
In view of above, it is held that the parking lot services provided by the Contractor appointed by the Market Committee, are not exempt under Notification No. 12/2017 as the Market Committee is not a Government Authority as per the definition provided in the clause 2(zt) of the notes appended to Notification No. 12/2017. The activity / services of parking provided by the applicant falls under heading 9967 and attracts GST @ 18% (CGST 9 % + SGST 9 %).

Prepared By- CA Preksha Jain
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