2022 (3) TMI 488 - AAAR - GST

Demo cars don't qualify for input tax credit under GST as they lose new vehicle character before resale

In Re: M/s. Platinum Motocorp LLP,

The AAAR Haryana ruled that input tax credit cannot be availed on demo cars as they do not qualify for the 'further supply' exception under GST law. Demo ... Input tax credit - credit can be availed on such Capital Goods (demo cars) and set off against output tax payable under GST or not - credit can be availed on ancillary input services such as insurance and repair and maintenance availed in respect of demo cars - HELD THAT:- Section 16 of CGST Act provides that a recipient Taxpayer is entitled to take the ITC if it has in possession of the duly issued invoices and the goods or services have been received and are intended for furtherance of business - certain restriction have been imposed on ITC availment in respect of the goods and services in Section 17(5). One such restriction expressly mentioned under Section 17(5)(g) viz-, “(g) goods or services or both used for personal consumption.” It can be inferred that sub-Section 17(5)(g) restricts ITC on the Motor Vehicles as these are potential items of personal/non-business use. The Demo Vehicles in respect of which the Question about admissibility of ITC has been raised for Advance Ruling, have been used, have been used for the purpose of demonstration before the prospective customers. Then they are sold like second hand goods. The law provides for ITC in case of “further Supply” of said vehicles. But here, first the vehicles are purchased, then they are diverted and used for Demonstration of 2 years or so, and in the first demonstration run it loses the character of the new vehicle and demo vehicles is sold akin to second hand goods and which is different from new Vehicle and accordingly treated differently under GST law. Thus it cannot be said that the demo vehicle is for further supply of such motor vehicles'. This very restricted and specific provision has been provided in law for Motor Vehicles. The purpose and intent of the law is thus very clear. Thus by allowing the ITC this way will be ultra vires the basic provisions of 'further supply of such motor vehicles' - the use to which the Demo Vehicles are put to, does not fit into the uses which find mention in sub-Section 17(5). The vehicles under question are not meant for 'further supply of such motor vehicles', but are first put to the mentioned uses. These are disposed of after prolonged use, which may even not restrict to 2 years as mentioned by the Appellant. The Demo Vehicles received by the Appellant have never been received with the intent to simply 'further supply/ sell' as such. Input Tax Credit on these vehicles, thus, cannot be allowed - under Section 17(5)(ab), the credit of the input services of repair/ insurance/ maintenance used in respect of said vehicles with seating capacity up to 13 passengers, cannot be allowed. Issues:1. Admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on demo cars for further supply under GST.2. Admissibility of ITC on ancillary input services like insurance and repair in relation to demo cars.Analysis:Issue 1: Admissibility of Input Tax Credit on Demo Cars for Further Supply under GSTThe Appellant, a GST-registered entity, appealed against an Advance Ruling that disallowed ITC on demo vehicles. The Appellant contended that demo cars used for business purposes should qualify as capital goods under Section 18(6) of the CGST Act 2017 and be eligible for ITC. The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) held that GST paid on demo vehicles cannot be availed as ITC for set-off against output tax under GST. The AAR emphasized that the term 'further supply' in Section 17(5)(a) should be strictly interpreted, indicating resale, which was not the primary purpose of purchasing demo cars. The Appellant argued that demo cars were essential for their business, were capitalized in their accounts, and were intended for further supply after a specified period. However, the AAR found that demo cars did not fall under the exceptions provided in Section 17(5)(ab)(i) and (ii), as they were not used for making taxable supplies or further supply of motor vehicles. The Appellant's contention that demo cars should be treated as capital goods for ITC purposes was rejected by the AAR, leading to the appeal.Issue 2: Admissibility of ITC on Ancillary Input Services in relation to Demo CarsThe Appellant also sought clarity on whether ITC could be availed on ancillary input services, such as insurance and repair, related to demo cars. The AAR ruled that no ITC could be claimed on these services in connection with the demo vehicles. The AAR's decision was based on the restrictions outlined in Section 17(5)(ab) regarding services like insurance, servicing, repair, and maintenance concerning motor vehicles. The AAR found that the demo vehicles did not align with the purposes specified in the legislation for availing ITC on such services. The Appellant argued that as demo cars were used for business activities and were eventually sold after demonstration, ITC on ancillary services should be allowed. However, the AAR maintained its ruling, stating that the demo vehicles did not meet the criteria for ITC eligibility under the relevant provisions.In conclusion, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority, denying the Appellant's claim for Input Tax Credit on demo cars and ancillary input services. The detailed analysis of the legislative provisions and the specific usage of demo vehicles led to the determination that these transactions did not qualify for ITC benefits under the GST framework.