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/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