Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update on DETERMINATION OF PLACE OF SUPPLY IN CASE OF SALE THROUGH AGENTS

GST update on DETERMINATION OF PLACE OF SUPPLY IN CASE OF SALE THROUGH AGENTS

Commission Agents as well as Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) Agent are employed by a number of firms in order to promote their sales. There are two types of agents:-
• Where the agent is simply the commission agent who is merely responsible to procure the goods and the Principal directly sends the goods to the buyer. 
• Where the agent is clearing and forwarding agent who holds the goods of supplier. On receipt of any order, he dispatches the goods to the buyer. 

Under GST regime, the determination of place of supply of goods in case agents are involved is ambiguous. An analysis of provisions contained in IGST Act, 2017 is given as follows:-
The place of supply (other than import or export) in respect of goods will be determined in accordance with section 10(1) of the IGST Act, 2017. This sub-section (1) to section 10 reads as follows:-
"10. (1) The place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India, shall be as under,––
(a) where the supply involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person, the place of supply of such goods shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient;
(b) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a recipient or any other person on the direction of a third person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of documents of title to the goods or otherwise, it shall be deemed that the said third person has received the goods and the place of supply of such goods shall be the principal place of business of such person;"
The clause (b) is applicable where besides supplier and recipient, one more person is involved in the transaction. Thus, in case agents are involved, this clause will apply. A doubt has been raised whether the above clause (b) will apply only to all types of agents namely commission agent and clearing and forwarding (C&F) agent or only to C&F agent. 

For the purpose better understanding, the above clause (b) is analyzed as follows:-
This clause is applicable where:-
- three parties are involved - supplier, recipient and third person (may be acting as an agent or otherwise).
- If the goods are delivered by supplier to recipient on direction of third person.
In such a case, it shall be deemed that the third person has received the goods.
- The place of supply shall be Principal place of business of such person.
By analyzing the above clause as above, we can say that this clause does not specify the nature of transaction carried out by the agent. Also, it simply uses the term "third person". It is even not specified that the third person should be an agent. It is simply mentioned with the words "supplier" and "recipient". Both of the terms are defined in section 2(93) and 2(105) of CGST Act, 2017 as follows:-
"93) “recipient” of supply of goods or services or both, means—
(a) where a consideration is payable for the supply of goods or services or both, the person who is liable to pay that consideration;
(b) where no consideration is payable for the supply of goods, the person to whom the goods are delivered or made available, or to whom possession or use of the goods is given or made available; and
(c) where no consideration is payable for the supply of a service, the person to whom the service is rendered, and any reference to a person to whom a supply is made shall be construed as a reference to the recipient of the supply and shall include an agent acting as such on behalf of the recipient in relation to the goods or services or both supplied;"

"(105) “supplier” in relation to any goods or services or both, shall mean the person supplying the said goods or services or both and shall include an agent acting as such on behalf of such supplier in relation to the goods or services or both supplied;"
An analysis of both the definitions makes it clear that buyer will be deemed as recipient of goods in all the cases where he is liable to pay the consideration. However, supplier of goods will be the person who is actually supplying the goods or services. The term supplier shall include the "Agent" as per this definition. Therefore, in our view, the person actually supplying the goods will be deemed as 'supplier'. 
Thus, going by the above definition, there will different treatments in case of different types of agents namely C&F Agent and commission agent. In case of C&F Agent, goods are lying at the premise of C&F Agent and as and when any order is received, goods are dispatched by him. In such a case, in our view, C&F Agent will be in the shoes of "supplier". Thus, reading the definition of 'supplier' with the clause (b) above, the principal will be acting as a third person. 
However, in case of commission agent, he neither receives the goods nor supplies the same. He is simply responsible for procuring the orders and goods are supplied by the principal himself. Therefore, in such a case, commission agent will be in the shoes of third person.
Based upon above discussion, we are of the view that place of supply will be different in the cases where the commission agent is involved and where the C&F Agent is involved. We are explaining the same with the help of different situations as follows:-

IN CASE OF COMMISSION AGENT:-
Situation 1:- 
Principal - In Rajasthan
Commission Agent - In Rajasthan
Buyer - Gujarat. 
The agent has procured order and on receipt of such order, the Principal has delivered the goods to Gujarat. Now, in this case, the agent shall be treated as third person on whose direction the goods are being delivered to Buyer in Gujarat. Going by this clause (b), it shall be deemed that the third person, i.e. the agent has received the said goods. In such a case, the premise of Commission Agent (i.e. Rajasthan) shall be treated as place of supply. Since location of supplier (Principal's premise, i.e. Rajasthan) and place of supply are the same, this transaction will be treated as intra-state and CGST and SGST will be charged. 

Situation 2:- 
Principal - In Rajasthan
Commission Agent - Madhya Pradesh 
Buyer - Maharashtra.
Agent has procured order and goods are dispatched by principal to Maharashtra. Thus, supplier is the principal (located in Rajasthan) and going by clause (b), the place of supply will be deemed as premise of agent (i.e. Madhya Pradesh). Since location of supplier is in Rajasthan and place of supply is in Madhya Pradesh; the transaction will treated as inter-state and IGST will be charged.
Situation 3:- 
Principal - In Rajasthan
Commission Agent - In Madhya Pradesh 
Buyer - In Madhya Pradesh.
In this case, commission agent has procured the order and Principal has supplied the goods. Thus, the location of supplier will be Rajasthan. In this case, goods shall be deemed to be received by the third person, i.e. agent, at Madhya Pradesh and place of supply will be at that place. Since location of supplier is in Rajasthan and place of supply is in Madhya Pradesh, the transaction will be inter-state and IGST will be charged. 
IN CASE OF C&F AGENT:-
Situation 1:- 
Principal - In Rajasthan
C&F Agent - In Rajasthan
Buyer - In Gujarat.
Principal has procured the order and C&F Agent has supplied the goods. In this case, the C&F will be treated as 'supplier' (located in Rajasthan) and the principal will be treated as third person under clause (b) above. In such a case, the place of supply will be treated as premise of third person, i.e. Rajasthan only. Therefore, since both location of supplier and place of supply are in same states, the transaction will be treated as intra-state and CGST and SGST will be charged. 

Situation 2:- 
Principal - In Rajasthan
C&F Agent - In Madhya Pradesh 
Buyer - In Maharashtra.
C&F Agent has dispatched the goods to Maharashtra on direction of principal. Thus, C&F Agent will be treated as supplier (located in Madhya Pradesh). Principal will be third person under clause (b) above. Thus, in this case, place of supply will be treated as premise of principal, i.e. Rajasthan. In such a case, since location of supplier is in Madhya Pradesh and place of supply is Rajasthan, transaction will be treated as inter-state and IGST will be charged. 
Situation 3:- 
Principal - In Rajasthan
C&F Agent - In Madhya Pradesh 
Buyer - In Madhya Pradesh.
In this case, C&F dispatching the goods will be treated as supplier, thus location of supplier will be Madhya Pradesh. The principal will be treated as third person and his premise will be treated as place of supply, which is in Rajasthan. Since place of supply and location of supplier are in two different states, transaction will be inter-state and IGST will be charged.

 

You can follow us www.capradeepjain.com or at www. https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/…

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com