TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as the 'CGST Act, 2017' and the 'GGST Act, 2017') are pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act, 2017 would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the GGST Act, 2017. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the GGST Act, 2017 by The Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ahmedabad North Commissionerate (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) against the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2022/22 dated 12.4.2022. The appeal is filed in terms of the authorization under Rule 106 (3) (a) of the CGST Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used in relation to furtherance of business? If yes, would the same be restricted to the portion of cost borne by the Applicant? 5. Consequent to hearing M/s. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [GAAR], recorded the following findings viz • that M/s. Emcure arranged a canteen service provider [CSP]; • that part of the canteen charges is borne by M/s. Emcure whereas the remining part is borne by its employees; • the employees portion of canteen charges is collected by M/s. Emere & paid to the CSP; • M/s. Emcure has arranged free of cost transportation facility to its employees in non-AC buses which is provided by third party vendor as part of its HR pol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port provided by M/s. Emcure; • that on one hand GAAR held that GST is not leviable on Emcure on free bus transportation while on the other hand it was held that ITC on GST paid on hiring bus, is admissible; • that in terms of section 16 (2) (c), ibid, ITC is not entitled unless the tax charged in respect of such supply has actually been paid; • ITC is admissible only when GST at appropriate rate is paid by M/s. Emcure to third party service providers; • that since the respondent does not recover any amount from its employees for bus transportation, there is no employer-employee relationship; • that the portion of the ruling which states that GST at the hands of M/s. Emcure is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ider will be exempted from GST which seems to be incorrect interpretation; • That they had not sought advance ruling for GST exemption by the service providers engaged in bus transportation of the employees; • that the service providers levy GST; • that this facility is provided free of cost; • that the advance ruling is only to the extent of levy of GST by Emcure in this case not for levy of GST by the service providers; • that as recipient of the services from third party for bus transportation, GST has been charged by the service provider and paid by the respondent, for which they had not sought exemption of GST. FINDINGS 9. We have carefully gone through and consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen procured by the employer. 12. On going through the impugned ruling, we find that the respondent has arranged free of cost transportation facility to its employees in non -AC bus, which is provided by a third party vendor, as a part of its HR policy and as per employment agreement. These facts are not in dispute. This issue stands clarified by the clarification issued vide circular no. 172/4/2022-GST dated 6.7.2022, the relevant portion of which is extracted below for ease of understanding Perquisites provided by employer to the employees as per contractual agreement 5. Whether various perquisites provided by the employer to its employees in terms of contractual agreement entered into between the employer and the employee are....