Page 166 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

676 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
the Motor Vehicle Act, which is the specific law dealing with
motor vehicles which ply on the roads. Where specific mean-
ing is provided under the MV Act, any other generic meaning
which is not in conformity with the specialised legislation
regulating motor vehicles, ought not to be resorted to. In this
regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Parle Agro (P) Ltd.
v. CCT, 2017 (352) E.L.T. 113 (S.C.).
(g) The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority failed to consider that in
the present case, the Contractors are not engaged in renting
of the cars or the buses to the Appellant, inasmuch as, hiring
of the said cars and buses to the Appellant does not amount
to ‘rent-a-cab’. In terms of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read
with the applicable schemes to cabs, the activity of ‘hiring’ is
different than one of ‘renting and accordingly, the activity of
hiring undertaken by the Contractors in the present case can-
not be covered within ‘rent-a-cab’. The difference between
hire and rent is also recognised in legal precedents and was
specifically dealt with by Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand
in CCE v. Sachin Malhotra, 2015 (37) S.T.R. 684 (Uttarakhand)
= 2014-TIOL-2039-(H.C.)-UKHAND-(S.T.) Therefore, inas-
much as the Ld. Advance Ruling Authority erred in conclud-
ing that there is no distinction between hiring and renting, is
based on perverse understanding and application of legal
provisions and thus, is liable to be set atside.
(h) The Central Government under Section 75 of the MV Act
clearly contemplates that renting involves giving possession
and control of the motor-cab over to the renter who is desir-
ing to drive the motor-cab himself or gets the driver to drive
the motor-cab for his own use.
(i) Further, reliance is also placed upon the decisions of the
Hon’ble Tribunal in R.S. Travels v. CCE, Meerut, 2008 (12)
S.T.R. 27 and Bharat Travels Co. Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad, 2010
(20) S.T.R. 646 wherein, on similar basis as adopted in the
judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Sachin Malhotra
(supra), the difference between hire and rent as stated above
has been applied to hold that the activity of renting is distinct
than the activity of hiring of vehicles. In case of rent, as is
provided in MV Act, the renter is enabled to take vehicle in
his possession and control, whereas in case of hire, the pos-
session and control is held by the contractor. Thus, where the
Ld. Advance Ruling Authority failed to appreciate the said
distinction, the ruling is liable to be set aside.
(j) In the present case, a bare perusal of the sample contracts dis-
close that the possession as well as control of the buses and
cars remain with Contractor, who engages driver and con-
ductor to supply transportation service to the Appellant. It is
thus, clear that the Appellant merely uses the buses and cars
for giving conveyance to its employees to the Factories with-
out retaining any control or possession of the buses and cars
and pays hire charges on the basis of usage i.e. payment on
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  262