BMW vehicles used for demonstration lose new vehicle status, making input tax credit ineligible under Section 17(5)

The AAAR, Haryana denied input tax credit on BMW vehicles received under stock transfer arrangements. The appellant claimed ITC on IGST and compensation cess paid on cars used for business activities before supply to dealers. The Authority held that vehicles used for demonstration purposes lose their character as new motor vehicles and become akin to second-hand goods, making them ineligible for ITC under Section 17(5). The ruling emphasized that allowing such credit would make all motor vehicles across industries eligible for ITC, contrary to Parliament's intent to restrict this benefit primarily to car dealers.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on motor vehicles used and then sold by the taxpayer for limited period.

Detailed Analysis:

Background:
The appeal was filed by M/s. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. against an Advance Ruling denying them Input Tax Credit (ITC) on motor vehicles used in various business activities and later sold to dealers. The vehicles were received as inter-state stock transfers and used for specific purposes before being sold.

Facts of the Case:
The taxpayer used BMW vehicles for training, marketing, press, sales, and visitor transportation purposes before selling them as old and used vehicles. They claimed ITC on the IGST and Compensation Cess paid on these vehicles, citing Notification No.08/2018-C.T. (Rate) for concessional GST rates.

Question for Advance Ruling:
The main issue was whether the taxpayer could avail ITC on the IGST and Compensation Cess paid on the vehicles received for business activities and subsequently sold after a limited period of use.

Ruling by Advance Ruling Authority (AAR):
The AAR ruled against allowing ITC on the motor vehicles based on the specific provisions of the CGST Act and the intended use of the vehicles. They highlighted the restrictions under Section 17(5) of the Act regarding the admissibility of ITC on motor vehicles.

Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant challenged the AAR's ruling, arguing that they should be entitled to ITC as the vehicles were further used for taxable supply, and no time limit was prescribed for such further supply. They also claimed that the AAR did not consider their submissions adequately.

Discussion and Findings:
The Appellate Authority analyzed the provisions of the CGST Act regarding Input Tax Credit on capital goods and the restrictions under Section 17(5). They emphasized that ITC is generally available on goods used in the course of business but noted the specific exclusion of motor vehicles under certain conditions.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Authority concluded that the BMW vehicles in question were not used for the purposes specified in Section 17(5) for availing ITC. They highlighted that the vehicles were not intended for further supply as such, as they were first used for specific business activities before being sold. Therefore, the ITC on these vehicles and related services could not be allowed based on the legislative intent and the specific provisions of the law.

In light of these findings, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the ruling that the taxpayer was not entitled to avail Input Tax Credit on the motor vehicles used and subsequently sold.

---