Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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