Question 1

Mascot Motors Private Limited (hereinafter referred as MMPL), a dealer of motor vehicles, registered in Udaipur, Rajasthan, has given an ex-works contract to M/s Ganesh Traders, registered in Ahmedabad, Gujarat for manufacturing 10 units of Pick-Up vans.

M/s Ganesh Traders manufactured the vans and handed them over to transporter on behalf of MMPL on 29th April and delivery on its part is complete at its factory gate in Ahmedabad. Further, it raised the invoice for all ten Pick-Up vans on same day. MMPL has recorded the invoice in its books on the same day.

Price of the vans (ex-factory) was ` 10 lakh each (excluding GST @ 28%). However, the vans were physically received by MMPL at its showroom in Udaipur, Rajasthan on 2nd May and payment was also made on the same day. After the payment,…

Accepted Answer

**Availability of ITC to MMPL on Pick-Up Vans — Discussion under GST Law**

**Nature of Supply and Applicability of ITC**

The supply from M/s Ganesh Traders (Ahmedabad, Gujarat) to MMPL (Udaipur, Rajasthan) is an **inter-state supply**, attracting **IGST @ 28%**. MMPL, being a registered dealer of motor vehicles, is eligible to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) under **Section 16(1) of the CGST Act, 2017**.

A preliminary issue under **Section 17(5)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017** arises regarding blocked credit on motor vehicles. However, Section 17(5)(a) restricts ITC only on motor vehicles used for transportation of **persons** with seating capacity not exceeding 13 (including driver). **Pick-Up vans are goods-carrying vehicles**, not passenger vehicles, so Section 17(5)(a) does not apply. Moreover, even if they were passenger-type vehicles, MMPL's purpose is **further supply** (stock-in-trade), which is an explicit exception. Accordingly, ITC on these vans is not blocked under Section 17(5)(a).

**Month in Which ITC is Available — Deemed Receipt under Ex-Works Contract**

Under **Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017**, one of the conditions for availing ITC is actual **receipt of goods**. In the present case, physical delivery at MMPL's showroom in Udaipur occurred on **2nd May**. However, this is an **ex-works contract**, meaning the seller's obligation is complete at the factory gate.

As per the **Explanation to Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017**: *"It shall be deemed t…

Question 2

Case Scenario:
Rapidmove Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (RLPL), a registered company based in Pune, Maharashtra, is engaged in providing logistics and warehousing services, including transport of goods by road, cold storage warehousing for perishables, and consultancy services. It also deals in activities like storage of agricultural produce.

During the quarter April to June of current year, the company undertook the following transactions:
(i) Logistics services provided to M/s Hanuman Enterprises, registered in Amravati, Maharashtra for ` 28,00,000 and to M/s Shiv Industries, registered in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh for ` 22,00,000.
(ii) Services by way of warehousing of vegetables provided to M/s Safal Farms registered in Solapur, Maharashtra and M/s Fresh Veggies registered in Vapi, Gujarat for ` 8…

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (c)**

The restriction of 180 days for payment of consideration is **not applicable** in the present case because this is an **inter-branch supply between distinct persons** of the same legal entity.

Under **Section 25(4) and Section 25(5) of the CGST Act, 2017**, establishments of the same legal entity registered under different GSTINs are treated as **distinct persons**. Accordingly, the supply from Pune office to Bengaluru unit constitutes a supply between distinct persons.

The proviso to **Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017** (read with **Rule 37 of the CGST Rules, 2017**) mandates reversal of ITC where a recipient fails to **pay the supplier the value of supply along with tax** within 180 days from the date of invoice. However, this rule is premised on an actual payment of monetary consideration flowing between two independent parties.

As per **Schedule I of the CGST Act, 2017**, supplies between distinct persons (even without consideration) are treated as taxable supplies. Since consideration is **not a mandatory element** for such deemed supplies to be taxable, the 180-day payment rule — which is triggered by failure to make payment of consideration — does not apply to inter-branch supplies between distinct persons of the same entity. The Bengaluru unit is therefore not required to reverse ITC merely on account of non-payment within 180 days.

Options (a) and (b) are incorrect because they presuppose the 180-day rule applies. Option (d) is incorrect — a c…

Question 3

Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi, registered under GST, is engaged in supplying multiple services (as discussed in the table below) in Mumbai, Maharashtra. He has furnished the following information with respect to the services supplied and received by him, during the month of April:

S.No. | Particulars                                                                          | Amount (`)
(i)   | Services of transportation of students provided to Sanskar College offering the       |    90,000
      | degree courses recognized by law.                                                    |
(ii)  | Outward supply of services of milling of paddy into rice                             | 1,80,000
(iii) | Received the services by way of transportation of goods by road from Sindhu           | 2,00,000
      | Tr…

Accepted Answer

**Computation of Net GST Payable in Cash by Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi for April**

**Transaction (i) – Transportation to Sanskar College (Degree Courses): TAXABLE**
Sanskar College offers degree courses (beyond higher secondary level). The exemption under Entry 66 of Notification 12/2017-CT(Rate) for services TO educational institutions (including transportation) is restricted to institutions providing education **up to higher secondary school or equivalent**. Degree colleges are excluded. Hence, this supply is **taxable under forward charge**. Being intra-state: CGST ₹8,100 + SGST ₹8,100.

**Transaction (ii) – Milling of Paddy into Rice: EXEMPT**
Services by way of milling of paddy into rice on job-work basis are **exempt under Entry 55 of Notification 12/2017-CT(Rate)**. GST = NIL.

**Transaction (iii) – GTA Services from Sindhu Transporters (Unregistered GTA): RCM**
Sindhu Transporters is an unregistered GTA. Under **Notification 13/2017-CT(Rate)**, a registered recipient (Sagar) is liable to pay GST on GTA services under **reverse charge**. Both parties are in Maharashtra → intra-state. GTA rate: CGST 2.5% + SGST 2.5%. CGST ₹5,000 + SGST ₹5,000. **ITC is available** on this RCM payment.

**Transaction (iv) – Business Exhibition in Gujarat for Ramesh Industries (Registered in Delhi): IGST**
Under **Section 12(7)(a) of the IGST Act 2017**, when services related to organization of exhibitions are provided to a **registered** recipient, the place of supply = **location of recipien…

Question 4

Regal Foundation of Commerce organized a business summit in Surat, Gujarat, in which all the startups were invited to pitch their business ideas. Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd., registered in the State of Maharashtra, sponsored the summit and paid a sponsorship fee of ` 1,50,000 to Regal Foundation of Commerce.

You are required to determine, who is the person liable to pay tax if:
(I) Regal Foundation of Commerce is a body corporate.

Accepted Answer

**Applicable Provision:** Section 9(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) (Reverse Charge Mechanism).

**Nature of Transaction:** Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd. (the sponsor) is the **supplier** of sponsorship services. Regal Foundation of Commerce (the event organizer receiving the sponsorship) is the **recipient** of the sponsorship services. The sponsorship fee of ₹1,50,000 paid by Pandit Jewels to Regal Foundation represents consideration for the sponsorship service rendered by Pandit Jewels (i.e., providing financial support and association rights to the event organizer).

**Case (I) — Regal Foundation of Commerce is a Body Corporate:**

As per the relevant entry in Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), when **any person** provides services by way of sponsorship to **any body corporate or partnership firm**, the liability to pay GST is on the **recipient** (body corporate/partnership firm) under reverse charge.

Since in this case Regal Foundation of Commerce is a **body corporate**, the conditions for reverse charge on sponsorship services are fully satisfied:
- Supplier: Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd. (any person — condition met)
- Recipient: Regal Foundation of Commerce (a **body corporate** — condition met)

Accordingly, **Regal Foundation of Commerce is liable to pay GST** under the reverse charge mechanism, even though the service is rendered by Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd.

**Applicable Tax:** Since Pandit Jewels…

Question 5

Regal Foundation of Commerce organized a business summit in Surat, Gujarat, in which all the startups were invited to pitch their business ideas. Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd., registered in the State of Maharashtra, sponsored the summit and paid a sponsorship fee of ` 1,50,000 to Regal Foundation of Commerce.

You are required to determine, who is the person liable to pay tax if:
(II) Regal Foundation of Commerce is not a body corporate.

Accepted Answer

**Answer: Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd. is liable to pay GST under the reverse charge mechanism.**

**Explanation:**

When Regal Foundation of Commerce is not a body corporate, the reverse charge mechanism is triggered for sponsorship services.

**Applicable Rule:** Rule 5 of CGST Rules, 2017, read with Schedule II (services subject to reverse charge), specifies that sponsorship services provided by an individual or entity that is NOT a body corporate are subject to reverse charge.

**Mechanism:**

Under the reverse charge mechanism for sponsorship services:
- The recipient of the sponsorship service (Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd.) becomes liable to pay and remit GST
- The supplier (Regal Foundation of Commerce, being a non-body corporate entity) is not required to issue a tax invoice
- The recipient must pay GST at the applicable rate on the sponsorship fee of ₹1,50,000

**Rationale:**

The reverse charge is applicable specifically because the service provider (Regal Foundation of Commerce) is not a body corporate. If the service provider were a body corporate, normal forward charge would apply, and the provider would be liable for GST payment. However, since it is a non-body corporate entity providing sponsorship services, the law shifts the liability to the recipient/recipient, who is typically a more regular GST taxpayer and has better compliance mechanisms.

**Liability:**

Pandit Jewels Pvt Ltd. must:
1. Treat the sponsorship payment as subject to GST without awaiting a tax invoice f…

Question 6

Examine whether GST is exempted in the following independent case of supply of services:

(i) Apex Facilities provided civil maintenance services for the upkeep of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) head office building. Value of supply of goods constitute 20% while providing such maintenance services.

Accepted Answer

**Applicable Provision:** Entry No. 3 and Entry No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) provide exemption for services supplied to a local authority in relation to functions entrusted to a Municipality under **Article 243W of the Constitution of India**.

**Entry 3** exempts **pure services** (excluding works contract or composite supplies involving goods) provided to the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, local authority, or Governmental authority in relation to functions under Article 243W.

**Entry 3A** exempts **composite supplies** of goods and services where the value of goods **does not exceed 25%** of the total value of the composite supply, provided to a local authority in relation to functions under Article 243W.

**Analysis of the Given Case:**

**Recipient:** Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is a **local authority** as defined under Section 2(69) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

**Nature of Supply:** Apex Facilities provides civil maintenance services for the upkeep of the MCD head office building. Since the supply involves both services and goods (materials used during maintenance), it is a **composite supply** — not a pure service. Therefore, Entry 3 (pure services exemption) does **not** apply.

**Value of Goods:** The value of supply of goods constitutes **20%** of the total value of supply, which is **less than 25%**. This satisfies the threshold prescribed under Entry 3A.

*…

Question 7

Examine whether GST is exempted in the following independent case of supply of services:

(ii) M/s Talreja & Talreja, a firm of advocates, provides legal services to the State Government for representation in the High Court.

Accepted Answer

**GST is EXEMPTED** on legal services provided by M/s Talreja & Talreja, a firm of advocates, to the State Government for representation in the High Court.

**Relevant Provision:** Entry No. 45 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, exempts the following supply from GST:

*"Services by an individual advocate including a senior advocate, or a firm of advocates, by way of legal services to any person other than a business entity."*

**Analysis of the Case:**

The key question is whether the **State Government qualifies as a 'business entity'** under GST law.

A **'business entity'** means any person carrying out business. The State Government, in its **sovereign/governmental capacity**, is NOT engaged in carrying out business — it performs statutory and governmental functions. Therefore, the State Government does **not** qualify as a 'business entity' under GST.

Since the recipient (State Government) is a person **other than a business entity**, the condition of the exemption entry is satisfied.

**Conclusion:** The legal services provided by M/s Talreja & Talreja (a firm of advocates) to the State Government for High Court representation are **fully exempt from GST** under Entry No. 45 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate). No GST is chargeable on such supply, and the question of reverse charge also does not arise as the recipient is the State Government, not a business entity.

Question 8

Examine whether GST is exempted in the following independent case of supply of services:

(iii) BLF Mall, Noida provides services by way of vehicle parking to general public in the basement of mall.

Accepted Answer

**Issue:** Whether GST is exempt on vehicle parking services provided by BLF Mall, Noida (a private commercial entity) to the general public.

**Legal Position under GST:**

Under **Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017** (the Exemption Notification), certain services are exempt from GST. The exemption for services relating to vehicle parking extends only to services provided by the **Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, or a local authority** in relation to a function entrusted to a municipality under **Article 243W of the Constitution of India** (which includes urban amenities, regulation of land use, etc.).

**BLF Mall, Noida is a private commercial entity** — it is neither a government body nor a local authority. Therefore, the exemption available to local authorities for providing parking as a municipal function does **not** apply to BLF Mall.

There is **no entry in Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R)** that specifically exempts vehicle parking services provided by a private entity (such as a mall) to the general public, regardless of whether the parking is in a basement or open area.

**Conclusion:** GST is **NOT exempt** on vehicle parking services provided by BLF Mall, Noida to the general public. It is a **taxable supply of services** under the **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017**. The applicable GST rate on parking lot services (SAC Code 9967) is **18%** (9% CGST + 9% SGST/UTGST), as per **Notification No. 11/2017-Central…

Question 9

Examine whether GST is exempted in the following independent case of supply of services:

(iv) Service provided by a private transport operator to Scholar Boys Higher Secondary School by way of transportation of students to and from the school.

Accepted Answer

**Issue:** Whether the service of transportation of students by a private transport operator to Scholar Boys Higher Secondary School is exempt from GST.

**Relevant Provision:** As per **Entry No. 14 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017** issued under the **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017**, services provided **to an educational institution** by way of **transportation of students, faculty and staff** are exempt from GST.

**Meaning of 'Educational Institution':** An 'educational institution' has been defined under the said notification to mean an institution providing services by way of:
(i) pre-school education and education up to **higher secondary school or equivalent**;
(ii) education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force; or
(iii) education as a part of an approved vocational education course.

**Application to the Given Case:**

1. **Scholar Boys Higher Secondary School** imparts education up to the higher secondary level. It therefore squarely qualifies as an **educational institution** within the meaning of the above definition.

2. The **private transport operator** is providing transportation services to the school for carrying **students** to and from school. The service is supplied **to** the educational institution (the school) and the beneficiaries are students.

3. Such service — transportation of students by a transport operator to/from an educational insti…

Question 10

Mr. Muttswami, an electronics dealer registered in Bangalore, Karnataka hired M/s Parivahan Logistics, an unregistered Good Transport Agency (GTA), to deliver his goods at the place of business of customer in Jaipur, Rajasthan. M/s Parivahan Logistics charged ` 60,000 for the transportation of goods, which was paid by Muttswami on 4th January through account payee cheque. The delivery was also made on the same day.

M/s Parivahan Logistics did not raise the tax invoice for these services, since it was unregistered.

In this case, you are required to determine:
(i) Person liable to issue the tax invoice.

Accepted Answer

**Person Liable to Issue the Tax Invoice – Section 31(3)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017**

In the given case, M/s Parivahan Logistics is an **unregistered Good Transport Agency (GTA)**. Under **Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017**, GTA services are covered under the **Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)** — the liability to pay GST shifts from the supplier (GTA) to the **recipient of services**, provided the recipient is a registered person.

Since Mr. Muttswami is a registered person and he has received services from an unregistered GTA, he is liable to pay GST on the transportation charges of ₹60,000 under **Section 9(3) of the CGST Act, 2017** (reverse charge).

As a consequence of this RCM liability, **Section 31(3)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017** mandates that a **registered person who is liable to pay tax under reverse charge** shall issue an invoice in respect of goods or services received from a supplier who is **not registered**. This document is commonly referred to as a **self-invoice**.

Therefore, **Mr. Muttswami** (the registered recipient) is the person liable to issue the **tax invoice (self-invoice)** for the transportation services received from M/s Parivahan Logistics.

The self-invoice must be issued on the **date of receipt of services**, i.e., **4th January** (being the date on which delivery was made and payment was also made, both coinciding on the same day).

Additionally, under **Section 31(3)(g) of the CGST Act, 2017**, Mr. Muttswami is al…

Question 11

Mr. Muttswami, an electronics dealer registered in Bangalore, Karnataka hired M/s Parivahan Logistics, an unregistered Good Transport Agency (GTA), to deliver his goods at the place of business of customer in Jaipur, Rajasthan. M/s Parivahan Logistics charged ` 60,000 for the transportation of goods, which was paid by Muttswami on 4th January through account payee cheque. The delivery was also made on the same day.

M/s Parivahan Logistics did not raise the tax invoice for these services, since it was unregistered.

In this case, you are required to determine:
(ii) Time limit for issuance of the tax invoice.

Accepted Answer

**Determination of Time Limit for Issuance of Tax Invoice:**

Since M/s Parivahan Logistics is an **unregistered Goods Transport Agency (GTA)**, it cannot issue a tax invoice under the GST law. Accordingly, under **Section 31(3)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017**, the registered recipient — Mr. Muttswami — is required to issue a **self-invoice** (invoice on behalf of the unregistered supplier) in respect of services received.

This obligation arises because GTA services are notified under **Section 9(3) of the CGST Act, 2017** (read with Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate)), making the recipient liable to pay GST under the **Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)**.

**Applicable provision for time limit – Rule 47A of the CGST Rules, 2017:**

Rule 47A prescribes the time limit for issuance of the invoice referred to in Section 31(3)(f). It states that such invoice shall be issued **not later than the earlier of**:

1. The **date of payment** made to the unregistered supplier; or
2. The **thirtieth day** from the date of supply of services.

**Application to the given case:**

- Date of supply of services (delivery completed) = **4th January**
- Date of payment (account payee cheque) = **4th January**
- 30 days from date of supply = **3rd February**
- Earlier of: 4th January (date of payment) and 3rd February (30 days from supply) = **4th January**

**Conclusion:** Mr. Muttswami must issue the self-invoice **on or before 4th January**, i.e., on the sam…

Question 12

Mr. Muttswami, an electronics dealer registered in Bangalore, Karnataka hired M/s Parivahan Logistics, an unregistered Good Transport Agency (GTA), to deliver his goods at the place of business of customer in Jaipur, Rajasthan. M/s Parivahan Logistics charged ` 60,000 for the transportation of goods, which was paid by Muttswami on 4th January through account payee cheque. The delivery was also made on the same day.

M/s Parivahan Logistics did not raise the tax invoice for these services, since it was unregistered.

In this case, you are required to determine:
(iii) Time of supply of transportation services provided by GTA, assuming that tax invoice is issued on the last day on which it should have been issued.

Accepted Answer

**Applicable Provision:** Since M/s Parivahan Logistics is an **unregistered GTA**, the supply of transportation services falls under **Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)** as notified under **Section 9(3) of the CGST Act, 2017**. Accordingly, Mr. Muttswami (the recipient) is liable to pay GST. The time of supply in such cases is governed by **Section 13(3) of the CGST Act, 2017**.

**Section 13(3) – Time of Supply under Reverse Charge (Services):**
The time of supply shall be the **earliest** of the following two dates:
(a) The date of payment as entered in the books of account of the recipient OR the date on which payment is debited in the bank account, whichever is **earlier**; or
(b) The date **immediately following 60 days** from the date of issue of invoice (or any other document in lieu thereof) by the supplier.

**Determination of Invoice Date:**
Since M/s Parivahan Logistics did not raise any invoice (being unregistered), the question assumes the invoice is issued on the **last day on which it should have been issued**. Under **Rule 47 of the CGST Rules, 2017**, a supplier of services (other than banking/NBFC) must issue an invoice within **30 days** from the date of supply of service.

Date of supply of transportation service = **4th January**
Last day for invoice issuance = 4th January + 30 days = **3rd February**

**Calculation of Time of Supply:**
- Date (a): Date of payment = **4th January** (payment by account payee cheque on 4th January)
- Date (b): 60 days from i…

CA Inter Taxation — Revision Test Paper (RTP) — September 2025