Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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