News Update

Cus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCCX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaGST - Conclusion that taxable person is providing a service to supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law: HCIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US officialI-T- As per Section 119(2)(b), power to condone applications relate to claims for amount exceeding Rs 50 lakhs are to be considered by CBDT; however it is impermissible for CBDT to pass order on merits: HC8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 for unexplained income & u/s 69 for unexplained expenditure not tenable where complete transactional details are furnished & not doubted: HCRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthI-T- Delay in filing ITR is per se insufficient reason to estimate assessee's profit @15% on turnover, more so where audited financial report is filed in timely manner: ITATMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- For invoking section 69A, assessee should be found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article & which is not recorded in the books of account: ITATGovt proposes Guidelines for ethical approach to Coal MiningI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024I-T- Lending money with the primary intention of earning interest can be considered a business activity, but nature and manner of lending, as well as the frequency, should be taken into account: ITAT
 
GST implications on Festival Gifts

NOVEMBER 02, 2020

By S Sivakumar, B.Sc., LL.B., FCA, FCS, ACSI, Advocate

IT is festival season now…Navratri has just got over and we are waiting to celebrate the Diwali and Dhanteras. Though, we don't have a formal concept of thanking our friends and colleagues in the form of a 'Friendship Day' as the Americans celebrate, it is very common for corporates and high net worth individuals to dole out expensive gifts to their employees, vendors and customers, during these holiday seasons. These gifts could take the form of gift vouchers which can be used for purchasing consumer articles, sweet packs, fire cracker packs, gold coins, jewellery, etc., apart from cash.

Several interesting questions could arise, as to the implications on these gifts under the GST law.

The most important question is, of course, the ITC allowability on these gifts, especially those not involving food, sweet packs, etc. As we are aware, in terms of Section 16(1) of the CGST Act, ITC is available on all inward supplies of goods and services which are used in the course of or in furtherance of business, subject of course, to the exceptions mentioned in Section 17(5). There can be little doubt that, these festival gifts, when given to vendors, customers, etc. are to be considered in the course of or in furtherance of business. In the context of Section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the ITAT has, in Agfa India Private Ltd v Asst Commissioner of Income tax - 2015-TIOL-2553-ITAT-MUM held that, expenses incurred on Diwali gifts given to customers are to be allowed as business expenses, as these are in furtherance of business. This principle is equally valid under the GST law.

Taking this discussion forward…. can ITC be denied on the basis of Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, which states that, ITC is not available in the case of goods given as gifts or free samples. A study of this Section makes it clear that the ITC restriction is applicable only to goods that are "normally dealt with" by the registered person, as gifts or free samples. Thus, this Section may get attracted when a pharmaceutical firm gives medicines as gifts or free samples. Surely, this Section is inapplicable when goods in the form of gifts are given by corporates that do not manufacture or trade in the very same goods.

We also need to keep in mind, the provisions contained in Section 17(5)(g), in terms of which, ITC is not available on goods or services or both used for personal consumption. As can be seen, this particular section is poorly worded. It is inconceivable for a company to have personal expenses. In the context of Section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in Sayaji Iron and Steel Ltd v CIT - 2003-TIOL-312-HC-AHM-IT the Gujarat High Court has held that a company cannot have 'non-business' or 'personal' expenses. This legal principle, though rendered in the context of the income tax law, should have equal applicability under the GST law as well. Thus, based on Section 17(5)(g), ITC cannot be denied to companies, in respect of gifts given to suppliers, customers, etc.

Thus, in my strong view, ITC cannot be denied to the company that doles out gifts to its suppliers, customers, etc. during this festive season.

As regards gifts provided by an employer to its employees, we are aware that in terms of Sl No.1 of Schedule III to the CGST Act read with Section 7(2) of the CGST Act, services rendered by an employee to his employer in the course of or in furtherance of employment, is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. In my view, festival gifts given to employees have to be treated as being in the course of or in further of employment. In my further view, gifts given by the employer to its employees would not be covered under the definition of Section 2(47) as per which, "exempt supply" means supply of any goods or services or both which attracts nil rate of tax or which may be wholly exempt from tax under section 11, or under section 6 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, and includes non-taxable supply. When gifts given to employees, being in the course of employment, are not to be regarded as 'supply' in terms of Section 7(2) as aforesaid, the question of them being treated as exempt supplies within the meaning of Section 2(47) does not arise.

As regards the gifts given by an employer to an employee, we also need to keep in mind that in terms of Sl No. 2 of Schedule I to the CGST Act, gifts exceeding the aggregate value of Rs 50,000/- per employee, in a financial year will be treated as 'supply' within the meaning of Section 7(1). Apparently, there is a conflict between Sl No. 2 of Schedule I and Sl No. 1 of Schedule III. Invoking the concept of harmonious interpretation, the company/employer doling out gifts to its employees may be required to reverse ITC attributable to gifts in excess of the aggregate value in excess of Rs 50,000/- (per employee). In my further view, there would be no need for ITC reversal on gifts of value less than Rs 50,000/- per employee per financial year.

Many IT companies engage 'consultants' who are not to be treated as employees and consequently, the requirement to reverse ITC would not apply in respect of gifts given to such consultants.

In respect of "gifts" which are in the nature of business assets such as laptops, etc., ITC availed by the corporates would need to be reversed, as these transactions would get covered under Sl No. 1 of Schedule I to the CGST Act, involving permanent disposal of business assets. In my further view, 'business assets' would essential mean 'capital assets'.

Having comprehensively discussed the ITC implications on gifts, can there be a GST liability on employees who receive expensive gifts, in value exceeding Rs 50,000/- in a financial year from their employer. In my view, an employee cannot be treated as being engaged in business qua his employer and, therefore, there cannot be a GST liability on employees. Moreover, there is a specific exemption to employees who render services to their employer, in the course of or in furtherance of employment, in terms of Sl No.1 of Schedule III.

However, when expensive gifts are doled out to non-executive Directors, the employer could be liable to pay GST under RCM, in terms of Sl.No. 6 of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017.

Before concluding…

During this festival time, many employees have been forced to work from their homes. Many companies are happy about the fact that the productivity of their employees working from homes has gone up, thanks to the support that these employees have received from their spouses. As a token of appreciation, if a company wants to provide Diwali gifts to the spouses of its employees rather than to its own employees, will ITC have to be reversed?

No Sir, is my humble view.

[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)

POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.