Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAAR GST - 2021 (12) TMI AAAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 999 - AAAR - GSTLevy of GST - payment of notice pay by an employee to the applicant employer in lieu of notice period, under clause 5(e) of Schedule II of CGST Act - amount of premium of Group Medical Insurance Policy of non-dependent parents recovered from the employees & retired employees at actuals covered under the said Policy - recovery of nominal amount for availing the facility of Canteen at the Refinery at Bina when it is no supply as per clause 1 of Schedule III of CGST Act - recovery of telephone charges recovered from the employees over and above the fixed rental charges payable to BSNL - Canteen services to all the employees without charging any amount (Free of cost) will fall under para 1 of Schedule II of CGST Act. Whether GST is applicable on payment of notice pay by an employee to the applicant-employer in lieu of notice period under clause 5(e) of Schedule II of GST Act? - HELD THAT:- Services by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment have been placed out of the purview of GST. In present case also the said compensation which accrues to the employer is in relation to the services provided by the employee. Such compensation is related to the services not provided by him to the employer during the course of employment. In other words, the employer is being compensated for the employee's sudden exit. Merely because the employer is being compensated does not mean that any services have been provided by him or that he has 'tolerated' any act of the employee for premature exit - the Ld. AAR had erred in concluding that such activity was leviable to GST. Whether the amount of premium paid towards Group Medical Insurance policy of non-dependent parents recovered from employees and recoveries from retired employees who were covered under the policy is taxable under GST or not? - HELD THAT:- Any activity done against consideration is treated as supply however, such an activity must be in the course of business or for the furtherance of business - the activity undertaken by the applicant like providing of mediclaim policy for the employees' non-dependent parents/ retired employees through insurance company neither satisfies conditions of Section 7 to be held as “supply of service” nor it is covered under the term “business” of Section 2(17) of CGST ACT 2017. Accordingly, facilitating medical insurance services to non dependent parents and retired employees upon recovery of premium amount on actuals cannot be considered as 'supply of service' under CGST Act or MPSGST Act. Whether GST is applicable on recovery of nominal amount for availing the facility of canteen at the Bina refinery? - HELD THAT:- MPAAR has ruled that the Goods and Services Tax is applicable on the amount recovered from employees, mainly on the premises that 'the appellant is supplying food to its employees', which would be covered under the definition of the term 'business' under Section 2(17) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the appellant has asserted before us that it is collecting the portion of employees' share and paying to Canteen Service Provider, a third party, which is nothing but the facility provided to employees, without making any profit and working as mediator between employees and the contractor / Canteen Service Provider. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Goods and Services Tax is not applicable on the activity of collection of employees' portion of amount by the appellant, without making any supply of goods or service by the appellant to its employees. The Goods and Services Tax is not applicable on the collection, by the appellant, of employees' portion of amount towards foodstuff supplied by the third party / Canteen Service Provider. Whether GST is applicable on recovery of telephone charges from the employees over and above the fixed rental charges payable to BSNL? - HELD THAT:- The activity undertaken by the applicant like providing of telephone facility to employees through BSNL neither satisfies conditions of Section 7 to be held as “supply of service” nor it is covered under the term “business” of Section 2(17) of CGST ACT 2017. Accordingly, facilitating telephone connection to employees upon recovery of usage charges on actuals cannot be considered as 'supply of service' under COST Act or MPSGST Act. Whether full ITC is applicable to the applicant or ITC will be restricted to the extent of GST borne by the applicant employer? - HELD THAT:- Input credit of GST paid to BSNL on usage charges recovered from employees would not be available to the appellant as they are not providing any outward supply of telephone services and the facility is also not attributable to the purposes of their business in terms of Section 17(1) of the CGST Act - Input credit of GST paid to the insurance provider would also not be available to the applicant- as health insurance is in the excluded category under Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act and as said insurance services are not any outward supply of the applicant - As regards provision of canteen facility, It is found that the appellant has submitted that the canteen facility was required to be provided by a company as per Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore applying the proviso under Section 17(5)(b) that the input tax credit in respect of such goods or services or both shall be available, where it is obligatory for an employer to provide the same to its employees under any law, we are of the view that input credit of GST paid would be available to the appellant. Whether the provision of canteen services to all the employees without charging any amount (free of cost) will fall under Para 1 of Schedule III of GST Act and will not be subjected to GST? - HELD THAT:- Services by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment have been placed out of the purview of GST. In this case canteen services are provided to employees by the employer. So this is not a case where some services have been provided by the employee to the employer. There is nothing on record to show that the said facility provided to employees is part of the wage structure - canteen services would not be leviable to GST at the hands of the employer because of findings that the employer was merely a facilitator between the canteen service provider and the employee and that the employer was mandated to run a canteen under the Factories Act.
|