In re Ion Trading India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh)
(i) Whether amount recovered from the employees towards car parking charge payable to Shantiniketan Properties Pvt Ltd (Building Authorities), would be deemed as “Supply of Service” by the applicant to its employees?
(ii) If the first question is answered in affirmative, whether the value of aforesaid supply would be NIL, being provided in the capacity of a “Pure Agent”? If valuation is not accepted as NIL, what would be the value of such supply?
(iii) If GST is payable on the such amount recovered amount from the employees, whether the GST paid by the applicant to building authorities towards car parking charges would be admissible as input tax credit against supply of car parking services to employees?
AAAR Ruling- GST on amount recovered from employees towards car parking charge
Held by AAR
We observe that as per the letter dated 28th August 2018, addressed to the applicant issued by the M/s Shantiniketan Properties Private Limited (building authorities), there is a Rent Agreement entered into between the applicant and the building authorities and the above referred letter is issued in response to the additional parking space sought by the applicant. The initial Rent agreement copy is not provided by the applicant. Further as per the “Employee Handbook” provided by the applicant “the amount to be recovered from monthly salary of employee availing the parking slots is around INR 1500 per month and INR 500 per month for a four wheeler and two-wheeler respectively.”, however we notice that this amount shown in the Employees Handbook is not tallying with the details of “amount recovered from the employees” provided by the party. Further, from the letter dated 28th August 2018, it seems that certain parking slots were allotted free of cost to the applicant. In this regard, the procedure as to how these free slots are accounted/allotted to the employees is not explained by the applicant. Further, the ‘trail of financial transactions to clarify the “pure agent” status of the company’, as promised by the authorized representative of the applicant at the time of personal hearing, was also not provided by the applicant.
In the absence of requisite documents, as discussed in above paras, no ruling can be given on the questions asked by the applicant.
