Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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