Page 165 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : YKK INDIA PVT. LTD. 675
vance ruling Authority, however, such material was neither
discussed during the course of the hearing on 10-7-2018 with
the Authorized representative of the Appellant nor commu-
nicated to the Appellant before passing of the Impugned Rul-
ing. Thus, the Appellant craves leave of the Ld. Appellate
Authority of Advance ruling to rely upon complete records of
personal hearing before the Ld. Advance ruling Authority
and prays before the Ld. Appellate Authority of advance rul-
ing to pass appropriate directions calling upon complete rec-
ords of the personal hearing on 10-7-2018. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siemens Engineering and Manufac-
turing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (1976) 2 SCC
981 and Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India; (2010) 13 SCC
427 = 2011 (266) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.) has categorically held that
quasi-judicial authorities are obligated to be independent and
ought not to act in a pre-determined manner. It is further
held that where notices and orders disclose premeditated
mind of the adjudicating authority, such orders and notices
are vitiated and ought to be quashed. The Impugned Ruling
is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
(e) The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority ought to have considered
that the Appellant has fulfilled all eligibility conditions for
taking input tax credit specified in Section 16 of the Act. Reli-
ance has been placed upon the decision of the Punjab and
Haiyana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Ex-
cise v. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (49) S.T.R. 261 (P&H)
wherein it was held that :
“24. Similarly, the Rent-a-Cab services used by the executives
of the respondent for the purpose of travelling required for
business meetings, visits to the dealerships, visits to the vendor
sites, dealers meet business promotion activities, vehicles
launch, conferences, etc. is a an expenditure in relation to busi-
ness being incurred by the respondent in order to promote the
sales and for efficient running of the business for which they are
entitled to avail Cenvat credit.”
Thus, the Ld. Advance Ruling Authority having failed to ap-
preciate that the Appellant is entitled to take credit of GST
charged by the Contractor on hiring of buses and cars to the
Appellant which are used for transportation of its employees
to the Factories under Section 16 of the CGST Act and the
same is liable to be set aside.
(f) The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority ought to have considered
that a bare reading of the provisions of Section 17(5) of the
Act, discloses that only restriction which may be applied to a
case of input tax credit relating to transportation using buses
or cars etc. can be one of ‘Rent a Cab’ provided that the said
supply of transportation services fall within the meaning of
‘Rent a Cab’. The term ‘Rent a cab’ is not defined either in
Section 17(5) or under the Act. Accordingly, reference ought
to be made to the meaning ascribed to the said term under
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  261