Page 171 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : YKK INDIA PVT. LTD. 681
vour of the assessee should be preferred. In this regard, refer-
ence can be made to ACIT v. Hindustan Milk Foods (1975) 98
ITR 441, wherein the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
held that :
Moreover, even if we are to accept Mr. Awasthy’s contention
we will be driven to the conclusion that at least two interpreta-
tions are possible so far as Section 2(18)(b)(ii) is concerned : one
canvassed by Mr. Awasthy, Learned Counsel for the Depart-
ment, and the other by Mr. Dastur, Learned Counsel for the as-
sessee. In regard to the interpretation of fiscal statutes, the rule
is well-settled that where two interpretations are possible, that
interpretation should be adopted which is beneficial to the as-
sessee. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to differ
from the decision of the Tribunal.
9.1. Thus, the appellant submitted that the Ld. Advance Ruling Author-
ity failed to take a view in accordance with the settled judicial precedents and
therefore, the impugned ruling is liable to be quashed.
9.2. In view of the foregoing, appellant prayed that the impugned Ad-
vance Ruling passed by the Authority of Advance Ruling, Haryana may be set
aside/modify.
Whether Appeal filed in time :
10. In terms of Section 100(2) of the Act, an appeal against Advance
Ruling has to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of communication
thereof to the applicant. As seen from record, the signed copy of the impugned
order dated 11-7-2018 was dispatched on 31-8-2018; and received by the appel-
lant on 9-8-2018 as mentioned in the appeal. Appellant filed the present appeal
on 5-10-2018. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be filed within prescribed time.
Record of Personal Hearing
11. The personal hearing was fixed for 12-12-2018. Due to administra-
tive exigencies case could not be taken up and the same was adjourned for 31-12-
2018. Appellant vide its e-mail dated 27-12-2018 sought adjournment for one
week. Next date of hearing was fixed for 8-1-2019 but the appellant sought the
adjournment and accordingly the case was adjourned to 23-1-2019. The appellant
vide email dated 23-1-2019 made a request for adjournment for one week. Final-
ly, personal hearing was held on 3-4-2019. Advocates Shri Kishore Kunal and
ETO, Rewari Shri Adityendra Singh Takshak, attended the hearing on the fixed
date and time.
11.1 During the hearing the appellant while reiterating the submissions
made in their appeal papers put forth that the basic emphasis of their submis-
sions was that hiring is different from the renting and thus eligible to claim ITC
on hiring of buses and cars for transportation of their employees.
11.2 He submitted that the buses given by the contractor to the Appli-
cant do not fall under the definition of cab. 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. However, there is no restriction provid-
ed on renting of bus under Section 17(5)(b)(iii) and therefore, input tax paid on
renting of bus under the Acts is available.
11.3 He further emphasized that Uttarakhand High Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Sachin Malhotra, reported as 2015 (37)
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  267