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 Study/2018-19/138
06 December 2018

The issue involved in this case is that A.The applicability of a notification no. 12/2017 Central tax (Rate) dt.28.06.2017., issued under the provision of this Act; B. Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;


M/s Pawanputra Travels, ADVANCE RULING NO.RAJ/AAR/2018-19/24  dated 02.11.2018
Prepared by CA Preksha Jain and Himanshu Bhimani

Introduction:-The compendious of the case is that , M/s PAWANPUTRA TRAVELS., having GSTIN registration number 08AAIFP7583M1ZE, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is providing both air conditioned and non- air-conditioned vehicles on hire to the Indian Army. The applicant has raised invoices on Indian Army by charging GST on all types of vehicles (air conditioned and non-air conditioned) supplied by them. However, the Indian Army has not reimbursed GST amount on non-air conditioned vehicles provided by them on the grounds that no GST is payable on non-air conditioned contact carriage as per serial no.15 of exemption notification no.12/2017-central tax (Rate) dt.28.06.2017. The applicant has also submitted a letter dt.31.05.2018 regarding return of invoices wherein GST has been charged by the applicant on non-air conditioned vehicles.

Relevant Legal Provisions:
  • Section 11 of the CGST Act,2017.
  • Notification no. 12/2017 Central tax (Rate) dt.28.06.2017.
  • Clause (7) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  • Section 2(25) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  • Section 2(22) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  •  Section 99 of CGST/RGST Act 2017.
 
Issue Involved: 
The issue involved in this case is that  
  1. The applicability of a notification no. 12/2017 Central tax (Rate) dt.28.06.2017., issued under the provision of this Act;
  2.  Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
 
Assessee’s Contention:
  1. The applicant submits that there is exemption with respect to transportation of services by a non-air conditioned contract carriage vide serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which reads as follows:-
S. No. Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff) Description of Services Rate (%) Condition
15 Heading 9964 Transport of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings, by –
(a) air, embarking from or terminating in an airport located in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, or Tripura or at Bagdogra located in West Bengal;
(b) non-airconditioned contract carriage other than radio taxi, for transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire; or
(c) stage carriage other than air-conditioned stage carriage.
Nil Nil
 
It is pertinent to mention that it is provided that the meaning of ‘contract carriage’ will have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (7) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which states that-
“contract carriage” means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorized by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum—
(a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey, and includes—
(i) a maxicab; and
(ii) a motorcab notwithstanding the separate fares are charged for its passengers;
It is submitted that they neither satisfy the condition prescribed in clause (a) nor specified in clause (b) and accordingly, in their view, they cannot be considered as ‘non-air conditioned contract carriage’ eligible for exemption under the serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. However, the service receiver in their case is contending that they are covered by the exemption notification and no GST is payable to the government. Therefore, the applicant request to kindly examine whether they are eligible for claiming the benefit of exemption contained at serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not. 
  1. The applicant further submits that the amount of GST paid by them on the non air conditioned motor vehicles supplied to the Indian Army has not been reimbursed to them and the invoices raised by the applicant have been returned vide letter dated 31.05.2018. The applicant submits that it was mentioned in the letter dated 31.05.2018 that GST is not applicable on non air conditioned contract carriage and document issued by the Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) was also provided to the applicant. The classification of vehicles as per DG OL & Motor Vehicle Act issued by the Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) clearly mentions nil rate of GST on non air conditioned vehicles. Hence, the applicant requests to kindly pronounce decision as regards classification issued by the Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) with respect to non air conditioned light motor vehicles supplied by them and the applicable rate of GST on such vehicles.
  2. The applicant further submits that they have already paid GST on the supply of non-air conditioned motor vehicles supplied by them on hire to Indian Army but the service receiver is not reimbursing them the amount of GST on the grounds that the supply is covered by absolute exemption under serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. In this regard, the applicant submits that GST is indirect taxation, the burden of which is to be borne by the recipient. It is also pertinent to mention that as per Explanation to section 11 of the CGST Act, 2017, in case where there is absolute exemption granted by the government, the registered person is not supposed to collect GST from the buyers/receivers. The said section is produced for the sake of convenient reference as follows:-
11. (1) Where the Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, goods or services or both of any specified description from the whole or any part of the tax leviable thereon with effect from such date as may be specified in such notification.
(2) Where the Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, on the recommendations of the Council, by special order in each case, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, exempt from payment of tax any goods or services or both on which tax is leviable.
(3) The Government may, if it considers necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of clarifying the scope or applicability of any notification issued under sub-section (1) or order issued under sub-section (2), insert an explanation in such notification or order, as the case may be, by notification
 at any time within one year of issue of the notification under sub-section (1) or order under sub-section (2), and every such explanation shall have effect as if it had always been the part of the first such notification or order, as the case may be.
Explanation:-For the purposes of this section, where an exemption in respect of any goods or services or both from the whole or part of the tax leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the registered person supplying such goods or services or both shall not collect the tax, in excess of the effective rate, on such supply of goods or services or both.
The applicant submits that the exemption under notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 has been granted in exercise of the powers conferred under section 11(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and so it is very important to ascertain the applicability of exemption notification in the present case as if the exemption is admissible in the present case, they cannot collect GST from their service receiver. Therefore, decision should be given as regards applicability of exemption notification in the present case so that the applicant is able to correctly determine its tax liability.
 
Reasoning adopted by the tribunal: - Theauthority contented that the applicant does not satisfy the condition as prescribed in clause (a) nor specified in clause (b) of clause (7) of section 2 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as defined above.
Thus, the essential ingredient of a contract carriage is that it plies under a contract for a fixed set of passengers, and does not allow any other passenger to board or alight from the carriage at will. A ‘contract carriage’ carries passengers as a group and cannot pick up passengers en-route.
Even if the contract is assumed as ‘non-air-conditioned contract carriage’, even then, serial no.15 of the exemption notification no.12/2017 Central Tax(Rate) dt.28.06.2017 does not exempt it from GST, as specifically mentioned in the said notification.
It is hence concluded that the service provided by the applicant falls under ‘rent a cab’ service which attracts two rates i.e.
 
1. IGST @ 5% (CGST @ 2.5 % and SGST @ 2.5 %) without ITC credit.
 
2. IGST @ 12% (CGST @ 6 % and SGST @ 6 %) with ITC credit.

Conclusion
On the basis of above discussions it is now clear that the applicant can’t take the benefit of the notification no.12/2017-central tax (rate) dt.28.06.2017 as this service does not fall under ‘non-air conditioned contract carriage’ category. The service provided is ‘rent a cab’ which attracts IGST @ 5%(CGST @ 2.5% and SGST @ 2.5%) provided that credit of input tax charged on goods and services used in supplying the service, other than the input tax credit of input service in the same line of business (i.e. service procured from another service provider of transporting passengers in a motor vehicle or renting of a motor vehicle) has not been taken or IGST@12% (CGST@ 6% and SGST @ 6%) if input tax credit is availed.
 
 
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