• ION Trading India Pvt. Ltd. (‘the Appellant’) is engaged in the business of software development which is exported to overseas entity
• The Appellant procures car parking space from Shantiniketan Properties Pvt Ltd (‘Building Authority’) as per the requirement of the employees on payment of monthly lease charges. For availing the parking facility, employees provide a verbal/ e-mail confirmation to the Appellant
• The Appellant recovers entire monthly lease charges for parking space from its employees without any mark-up and the same is paid to the Building Authority
• The Appellant does not claim input tax credit in respect of the GST on the lease charges paid to the Building Authority in advance

·       If the first question is answered in affirmative, whether the value of aforesaid supply would be Nil, being provided in the capacity of a ‘Pure Agent’? If the valuation is not accepted as Nil, what would be the value of such supply?

·       If GST is payable on such amount recovered from the employees, whether the GST paid by the Appellant to Building Authority towards car parking charges would be admissible as input tax credit against the supply of car parking services to employees?

• Schedule II of the CGST Act provides that any lease, tenancy, easement, licence to occupy land is a supply of service
• The term ‘easement’ in common parlance means ‘a right to cross or otherwise use someone else’s land for a specified purpose’
• The Appellant is providing a right to its employees to use the parking space leased by the Building Authority. Such activities provided by the Appellant qualify under the category of ‘easement’ and hence, shall be treated as supply of services under Schedule II of the CGST Act
• Further, the Appellant is acting in the capacity of ‘Pure Agent’ as the entire amount collected from employees towards parking charges is transferred /paid to the Building Authority
• In terms of Rule 33 of the CSGT Rules, value of services in the instant facts would be ‘Nil’ since, the entire amount recovered by the Appellant from its employees is in the capacity of ‘Pure Agent’
• Separately, the question pertaining to the ITC becomes redundant and hence, is not answered