Company leasing pallets and containers to its own GST registrations constitutes taxable supply under Schedule II

The AAR, Maharashtra ruled that leasing of pallets, crates and containers by a company to its other GST registrations across India constitutes supply of services under Schedule II of GST Act, as it involves transfer of right to use goods for consideration. GST is leviable on lease transactions between distinct entities. For valuation, similar rates applied to normal customers and branches would not cause problems. The authority declined to rule on movement of leased equipment between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu branches, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 96 of CGST Act as the transaction's situs was outside Maharashtra.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Taxability of leased equipment as supply of services.
2. Determination of the value on which GST has to be charged.
3. Documentation required for movement of goods.
4. Taxability of inter-state movement of leased equipment.
5. Documentation required for inter-state movement of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Leased Equipment as Supply of Services

The primary issue is whether the leasing of pallets, crates, and containers (equipment) by CHEP India Private Limited (CIPL) from its Maharashtra registration to its other GST registrations across India constitutes a lease transaction and is taxable as a supply of services under Section 7 of the CGST Act.

The judgment confirms that GST is leviable on the supply of goods or services, and the definition of supply includes "lease" within its ambit. As per point 5(f) of Schedule II, the "transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment, or other valuable consideration" is deemed as a service under GST. The judgment agrees with the applicant's interpretation that Section 25 of the CGST Act creates a deeming provision whereby two registrations of the same company are considered distinct persons under GST. Therefore, lease transactions between different registrations of the same company are taxable under GST as supply of services.

Issue 2: Determination of the Value on Which GST Has to be Charged

The second issue pertains to the value on which GST should be charged, whether it should be the lease charges or the value of the equipment. The judgment acknowledges that the business model proposed by CIPL involves consolidating ownership of all equipment in Maharashtra and leasing it to other units at agreed leasing or hiring charges. Since the business model is not yet operational, the judgment considers the question hypothetical but provides guidance.

The value on which GST has to be charged would be the lease charges that would be charged by the other branch to the ultimate customer in the other state, or such other normal value derived from the lease rate normally charged to customers. The judgment emphasizes that the rate applied for leasing equipment to branches should be similar to that charged to customers, ensuring consistency in the valuation.

Issue 3: Documentation Required for Movement of Goods

The third issue involves the documents that should accompany the movement of goods from CIPL, Maharashtra to CIPL, Karnataka. This question was not admitted as it falls outside the scope of Advance Ruling under Section 97 of the GST Act. The judgment does not provide an answer to this issue.

Issue 4: Taxability of Inter-State Movement of Leased Equipment

The fourth issue addresses whether the movement of leased equipment from CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL, Maharashtra constitutes mere movement of goods not amounting to a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act, and thereby not liable to GST.

The judgment notes that the main question involves the movement of goods located in a state other than Maharashtra. It refers to Section 10 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, which determines the place of supply based on the location of goods at the time of delivery. The judgment concludes that the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority does not have jurisdiction over questions related to transactions outside Maharashtra. Therefore, no ruling is given on this issue.

Issue 5: Documentation Required for Inter-State Movement of Goods

The fifth issue involves the documents that should accompany the movement of goods from CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Tamil Nadu. Similar to Issue 3, this question was not admitted as it falls outside the scope of Advance Ruling under Section 97 of the GST Act. The judgment does not provide an answer to this issue.

Conclusion:

- Question 1: The leasing of equipment by CIPL from Maharashtra to other GST registrations across India is considered a lease transaction and taxable as a supply of services.
- Question 2: The value on which GST has to be charged would be the lease charges, as discussed.
- Question 3 & 5: Not admitted.
- Question 4: No ruling provided due to jurisdictional limitations.

The judgment provides clarity on the taxability of lease transactions between different registrations of the same company and the valuation for GST purposes, while noting jurisdictional limitations for certain inter-state issues.

---