The AAAR, Maharashtra, in the matter of M/s Chep India Private Limited [Order No. MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/02/2023-24 dated June 05, 2023] held that the transaction between two GSTINs of same person would be considered as lease transaction and accordingly taxable as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) and since the recipient unit is eligible for full ITC the valuation may be done as per second proviso to Rule 28 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“CGST Rules”).
Facts:
M/s. Chep India Private Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is engaged in the business of leasing of pallets, crates and containers (“Equipments”) and multiple GST registrations all over India including in the state of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
The Maharashtra unit owns the equipments and entered into leasing agreement with the customers and other units located across all over India.
Thereafter Maharashtra unit leases the equipment to Karnataka unit based on their demand requirement by executing Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) under the cover of the delivery challan and raises periodical invoices on Karnataka unit for lease charges (‘Transaction 1’).
The Karnataka unit further leases such equipments to end customers for consideration through and would be charging lease charges from its customers based on the period for which the equipment was used by the customer.
In case if such equipments is required by another unit of the Appellant say, Tamil Nadu, instead of sending such equipment back to Maharashtra, Karnataka unit undertakes to transport of such equipments directly to Tamil Nadu unit upon instructions from Maharashtra unit (‘Transaction 2’).
Upon receipt of equipments by Tamil Nadu unit, Maharashtra unit raises invoice to Tamil Nadu unit for lease amount, while Karnataka unit raises invoice to Maharashtra unit for facilitation of movement of equipment to Tamil Nadu unit.
The Appellant filed an advance ruling seeking whether leasing of equipments by Maharashtra unit to other unit would be considered as lease transaction, and if yes what would be the valuation of such services.
The AAR, Maharashtra vide Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-82/2020-21/B-111 dated December 01, 2022 ruled that the leasing of equipment by Maharashtra unit to other unit would be considered as lease transaction since both units i.e. Maharashtra unit and other units are distinct person as per Section 25 of the CGST Act. In respect of valuation the AAR ruled that, the lease charges which would be charged by the other branch to the ultimate customer would be the value of supply for branch transfer.
Aggrieved by the second question, the Appellant filed an appeal before the AAAR, Maharashtra seeking the valuation of lease transaction between the distinct persons.
Issue:
Whether movement of the equipments between distinct person would be considered as supply and what would be value of leasing services undertaken between distinct person for charging GST?
Held:
The AAAR, Maharashtra, in Order No. MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/02/2023-24 held as under:
- Observed that, there is no dispute that lease transaction between Maharashtra unit and Karnataka unit would be considered as supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act.
- Noted that, in respect of valuation the transaction value i.e. the price actually paid cannot be treated as the value of supply since, the supply is undertaken between the related persons i.e., the branches of the same company.
- Relied on the Ruling of AAR Maharashtra in matter of M/s BG Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. [Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA- 42/2019-20/21-22/B-56] wherein AAR, Maharashtra ruled that in case where the recipient is distinct person, and the recipient is eligible for full ITC the valuation may be done as per second proviso to Rule 28 of the CGST Rules.
- Held that, the Karnataka unit (recipient of leasing service) is eligible for full ITC of the lease transaction and hence the value declared in the invoice would be the value of goods or services or both as per second proviso to Rule 28 of the CGST Rules.
- Further noted that, the Karnataka unit is in the possession of the goods and Maharashtra unit is the owner of the goods, the movement undertaken by Karnataka unit (a lessee) to Tamil Nadu unit cannot be termed as supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act.
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
___________________________________________________________________________________
📢 FREE Webinar on “Blockchain and Virtual digital asset with overall taxation implications including GST” by CA Riddhi Jain & Adv (CA) Bimal Jain
 |
|
🔖 TOMORROW is the LAST Day !! Register Now !! 🔖 A2Z Academy is Organizing a FREE Webinar On: 📢“Blockchain and Virtual digital asset with overall taxation implications including GST” 🗓️ Date: August 04, 2023, Friday ⏰ Time: 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM (IST) 🎤 Speakers: 👨🏻🏫 CA Riddhi Jain 👨🏻🏫 CA (Adv) Bimal Jain Registration Link 🔗: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Kbvufgm6TyW-avGx6_3mfw Coverage:
Limited seats available Follow us on our social media for more updates: |