Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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