Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON HIGHLIGHTED RULING ON MERCHANT TRADE TRANSACTION BY GUJARAT AAR 76/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON HIGHLIGHTED RULING ON MERCHANT TRADE TRANSACTION BY GUJARAT AAR 76/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON HIGHLIGHTED RULING ON MERCHANT TRADE TRANSACTION BY GUJARAT AAR
Currently, two subjects are matter of discussion among the tax professionals; GST registered taxpayers and varied educated class of persons i.e. Corona and AAR rulings in GST regime. The effects of Corona has been eye witnessed by everyone and likewise AAR rulings are also highlighting the front page of the newspapers, websites etc.
 In a recent advance ruling in case of M/s. Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Gujrat AAR
GST is payable on goods sold to customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises.
The applicant is engaged in the development and supply of software with respect to the telecommunication qua wi-fi service management platform. OSS/BSS alongside packet core with the flexibility of modular and pre-integrated offerings etc. and trading in hardware.

They procure requisite hardware from the vendor located within India or outside India on payment of applicable duties/taxes. Such hardware is sold as per the requirement of the customer on payment of GST, except in case of export.

The applicant proposed to undertake transaction and supply of hardware, commercially known as ‘Merchant Trade Transaction’, wherein the applicant will receive an order from the customer located outside India, and as per their instruction, Vendor would directly ship the goods to a customer located outside India.

The vendor would issue an invoice on applicant against which payment would be made in foreign currency and the applicant would raise invoice on customer and would receive consideration in foreign currency.

In the above transaction, goods would not physically come into India but would move from place outside India to another place outside India.

The applicant has in their application dated 24.5.2018 raised the following issues for determination before the Authority:

i) Whether GST is payable on goods procured from a vendor located outside India in a context where the goods so purchased are not brought into India?

ii) Whether GST is payable on goods sold to customers located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises?

The AAR referred to provisions under CGST Act and observed that the term ‘export of goods’ has been defined under sub section 5 of Section 2 of IGST Act, 2017 which reads as under: Export of goods would mean—‘With its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking goods out of India to a place outside India’.

The above definition indicates that the act of taking goods out of India to a place outside India qualifies as export. In the instant case, the goods have not crossed the Indian customs frontier and as such it is clear that the goods are not physically available in the Indian Territory.

When the goods are not available in the Indian Territory, the question of taking goods out of India does not arise. Thus, the subject transaction does not qualify as export of goods.

In the instant case, the applicant is selling goods for a consideration in the course or furtherance of business and as such the transaction tantamount to ‘supply’ in terms of the definition of ‘supply’. In the event that the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outside India, such supplies shall be treated as Inter-stated supplies.
In view of the above, it appears that the transaction is covered under the ambit of Inter-state supply and is neither exempted nor covered under the export of services. Thus, the theory of elimination takes us to the conclusion that such supplies will be subject to the levy of IGST.

Thus, AAR affirmed that (i) GST is not payable on goods procured from a vendor located outside India, where the goods so purchased are not brought into India.

ii) Applicable GST is payable on goods sold to a customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises.
From the decisions cited above, the point of discussion arises in case of second question answered by the authority.
The Authority refers to Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 which defines the term ‘Supply”. But it refers to only sub-section (1) of Section 7 and omits to refer or to see sub-section (2) of Section 7 which begins with a non obstante clause and, thus, has an overriding effect over sub-section (1). It provides that activities or transactions specified in Schedule III shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The above discussed ruling seems to be incorrect since it does not considers all the provisions of the amended law in GST Act. Paragraph 7 to the Schedule-III to the CGST Act 2017; amended by CGST (Amendment) Act 2018, is reproduced states that
“Supply of goods from a place in the non-taxable territory to another place in the non-taxable territory without such goods entering into India”.
It can be seen that the above case of Sterlite Technologies Ltd clearly falls under the para 7 as mentioned above. Therefore, it should not be treated as supply under the provisions of the law. While ruling was pronounced, this para to Schedule III is ignored completely. The assessee should move its file to Court for immediate relief from the ruling imposed on the transaction which is out of GST purview.
In our opinion, since the applicant has filed application for determining the liability by AAR before the introduction of CGST Amendment Act, 2018, there is high probability that this provision was not taken into consideration. The ruling must have been determined in respect of transactions undertaken before prospective amendment was made in Para 7 of Schedule III. However, since this ruling has not specified about the period of applicability; the government should come into role and provide some clarifications to re build the trust of AAR rulings among the taxpayers.
This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21.
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