Page 169 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : YKK INDIA PVT. LTD. 679
A bare perusal of the definitions provided in the MV Act
makes it clear that the motor vehicles are divided into differ-
ent categories based on the number of passengers that the
said vehicle can carry. The motor vehicle that can carry up to
6 people is categorised as motor cab, motor vehicle that can
carry from 6 people to 12 people is categorised as maxi cab
and motor vehicle that can carry more than 6 people is cate-
gorised as omnibus. In the present case, applying the afore-
said definition, it is clear that the buses hired by the Appel-
lant which carry more than 12 passengers cannot be covered
within the meaning of ‘cabs’. On a reading of the definitions
in the MV Act, it is clear that the meaning of cab is under-
stood to include only those motor vehicles which carry upto
l2 passengers. Thus, the restriction under Section 17(5) which
is only applicable to ‘cabs’ could not have been extended to
include a bus with seating capacity above 12 passengers.
Thus, the Impugned ruling is liable to be quashed.
(n) Perusal of Section 74 and Section 75 of the MV Act makes it
clear that bus is given a license only under Section 74 where-
as motor-cab can be given license under Section 75 and/or
Section 74 depending on the usage. Accordingly, it is clear
that bus is not given a license under Section 75 and therefore,
it is submitted that bus perhaps cannot operate on rent basis.
It is thus submitted that when neither Section 75 nor Rent a
Cab Scheme provide for renting of the bus, Section 17(5) can-
not be read to include bus for disallowance of input tax cred-
it.
(o) It is clear that Section 17(5)(b)(iii) only contemplates inclusion
of renting of cab as a input supply on which input tax credit
on input tax paid under the Acts is not available. It is further
submitted that there is restriction provided on renting of bus
under Section 17(5)(b)(iii) and therefore, input tax paid on
renting of bus under the Acts is available. Hence, it is submit-
ted that in so far as the buses are concerned, there cannot be
any doubt that transportation services provided by buses
cannot be disallowed under 17(5)(b)(i) and therefore, Appel-
lant is eligible to claim GST charged by the Contractor for hir-
ing of buses for transportation of employees.
(p) The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority in the Impugned Ruling
categorically noted that “when it comes to goods and services tax,
tax on services finds it genesis from chapter V of the Finance Act,
1994, i.e. service tax statue. Therefore, the definitions relating to
rent-a-cab as occurring in the Findnce Act, 1994, shall also have
bearing on what is meant by rent-a-cab in common commercial par-
lance when it comes to understanding the same for the purpose of
taxing statues”. It is submitted that given the above findings,
the Ld. Advance ruling Authority ought to have also delved
into the scope of rent-a-cab under the erstwhile service tax
regime. In the erstwhile service tax regime, service tax by
rent-a-cab operator was only payable on renting of cabs and
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  265