News Update

India, Oman resolve to expediate talks for DTAATight schedule for Monsoon Session - 46 bills to be passed in 24 daysGovt proposes to amend law for Fastags for all commercial vehiclesCBDT Instruction No 3/18 - Board asks CCITs to wrap up withdrawal of appeals by Aug 20, 2018I-T - If assessee fails to establish urgent nature of business necessities for taking loans from its Directors in cash, such transaction warrants levy of penalty u/s 271D: ITAT Special BenchOECD employment rate raises by 0.2% in Q1SC asks Parliament to enact new law to deal with mobocracyST - If GOI department could be treated as using 'Residential Complex' constructed by NBCC for its 'personal use', how another Corporate body could be denied benefit of that type of user of 'Residential Complex' to be occupied by its Managerial Staff: HCPlace of removal - Valuation under CE & Customs Laws - past and present (See 'TOG INSIGHT' on 'Taxongo.com')India mulling safeguard duty on Chinese and Malaysian solar panelsGovt hikes basic import duty on many textile goodsIMF says India to be fastest growing economy in 2019CBDT prescribes registration form for Non-resident applicantsIs disallowing supplementary claim under MEIS & SEIS Scheme by DGFT valid?CX - On being pointed out, Assessee immediately reversed Credit wrongly availed - there cannot be said to be any fraud through which it wanted to evade Duty - setting aside of interest & penalty cannot be faulted: HCIGST refund - CBIC launches another fortnightly drive till July 30I-T - Complaint received against assessee is a reason to suspect but it is not a reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment untill AO verifies content of information before initiating re-assessment: ITATWCO Secretary General lauds India's efforts to use technology for trade facilitationBrahMos successfully test-fired from Balasore Test RangeIndia-Oman Joint Commission Meeting begins in MuscatHi-tech maritime labs launching programmes for traineesChina's GDP logs 6.8% growth in first half of fiscal20 hurt in pandal collapse during PM's Midnapore political rallyExports - Accountability of inputs - DGFT eases norms for Advance Authorisation holdersCustoms - CBIC expands list of exempt items for handicraft sectorI-T - Even if soil separated from land and put in containers it continues to be specie of land and income from growing mushrooms in such containers under controlled environment is agri income exempt u/s 10(1): ITAT Special BenchWTO - Govt officials attend workshop on SPS control, Inspection & approval proceduresI-T - Surplus generated by agriculturist on sale of his agri land is no basis to deny exemption u/s 2(14) and treat sale consideration as business income: HCSecond Year of GST - A year to amend mistakesCommittee set up to examine 'decriminalisation' of offences under Companies Act
 
Advance ruling in re: Caltech Polymers Pvt Ltd - A different view

JULY 06, 2018

By G Jayaprakash & Amina G

CONSEQUENT to the filing of an application for Advance Ruling about the taxability of the Canteen facilities provided to its employees by M/s Caltech Polymers Pvt Ltd., Malappuram, the authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala held that the services provided by the applicant are liable to GST - 2018-TIOL-01-AAR-GST. High end corporate accountants appear to have accepted the ruling if we look at the papers published in different professional weeklies.

However, this paper attempts a different view.

The reasoning adduced for the above conclusion appears to be that the applicant is collecting the cost of food provided to its employees on a cost sharing basis from them.The rulings admits that the Company is providing Canteen facilities exclusively for its employees without any profit margin and by not including any deemed cost incurred by the company. The cost of food alone is deducted from their salary.

The deductions relate only to the value of cereals, vegetables and other items required to prepare the food. The Company, as per requirement of the Factories Act, provided space including furniture and electricity along with the services of the cooks employed for running the Canteen. No deemed cost incurred by the company such as rent for the canteen space including furniture or salary of the cooks employed by the Company or electricity charges, either on proportionate basis or on actual basis, are added to the value of the food for which deductions are made from the salary of the employees. In sum and substance, the payment received from the employees through the deductions made from their salary is the recovery of the share of the cost of ingredients for the food consumed by them for which advance payment is made by the Company. The workers shared only the cost of ingredients for the food consumed by them. The Company's role is limited to that of a lender advancing payment of ingredients during the purchase and recovery of the same from the employees, based on consumption. From the above, it can be seen that the Company is not providing any output service of food supply as held by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala.

The question of taxability is decided by relying on the definition of the term business as per sub clause (b) of Section 2(17) of the CGST ACT read with sub section(s)(31) & (105) of Section 2, Schedule II of the Act and Section 7(1) (a) of the Act. The ruling is given by considering the activity of the company as a supply of services. As per Section 2(102) of the Act "services" means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged. The above definition of services excludes transaction of money other than for its use for conversion as provided in the definition quoted above.

The company restricts its role in recovering the cash it advanced for purchasing the ingredients used for cooking the food from the salary of its employees. As per the definition of services {S.2(102)}, the transaction in money is excluded from its ambit and hence there is no supply of services. Apparently, this aspect has not been considered by the authority in the ruling handed down by the Hon'ble members.

Quite possibly, this ruling would, therefore, be reversed by the appellate authority presuming the aggrieved knock on that door.

(The authors are Advocates, at G Jayaprakash Associates, Thiruvananthapuram and the views expressed are strictly personal.)

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)

Save


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Recovery of food expenses

I beg to differ with the opinion of the learned author inasmuch as recovery of food from employees is viewed at par with the exemption for transactions in money.'Money’ has been defined in Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017 to include instruments like cheques, drafts, pay orders, promissory notes, letters of credit, etc. There are lot many fringe benefits provided to employees like subsidised food, transport, mobile phones etc. When a recovery is made on account of the above above fully or partially, it is subject to levy of tax in GST as well as in erstwhile ST regime. It cannot be treated as transactions in money so as to claim any exemption. CBEC also clarified this matter earlier and in GST also

Posted by james pg
 

TIOL Tube Latest

GST 1st Anniversary - A Hardlook (Episode 2) | simply inTAXicating

What's New

CGST Notification
CGST Rate Notification
CGST Circular
Income Tax Notification
Income Tax Circular
Customs Tariff Notification
Customs NT Notification
Customs Circular
Anti Dumping Notification
DGFT Notification
DGFT Public Notice
DGFT Circular
RBI Circular

TAXATION & WILDLIFE