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 POS FOR RENTING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

GST UPDATE ON POS FOR RENTING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
GST UPDATE ON APPLICABILITY OF GST WHERE BOTH SUPPLIER AND RECIPIENT OF RENTING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SERVICE ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA AND PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN INDIA
 
The provisions for determining place of supply are given in chapter V of IGST Act, 2017 which covers section 10 to 14 of IGST Act. Section 12 determines the place of supply of services where the location of supplier of services and the location of the recipient of services is in India. Thus, section 12 will apply only where the location of supplier aswell as the recipient is in India. Similarly, section 13 determines the place of supply of services where the location of the supplier of services or the location of the recipient of services is outside India. Thus, this section prescribes the provisions for determiningthe place of supply in case where either the location of supplier or the location of recipient of service is outside India. This section uses the word "or", therefore, there arises a question as to which section will apply in case location of both recipient of service as well as supplier of service is outside India. This update is about the issue whether the provisions of section 13 can be applied where both location of supplier and recipient are outside India.
 
 
In case of renting of immovable property service, the place of supply is the place where the immovable property is situated. This provision is given in both section 12 (applicable where location of supplier of service and location of recipient of service is in India) and in section 13 (applicable where location of supplier of service OR location of recipient of service is in India). In the given case where both supplier and recipient of renting service are located outside India, section 12 is outrightly not applicable. Further, the section 13 uses the word "OR" which if literally interpreted will mean that it will apply only if one out of supplier and recipient are located outside India. It does not specifically mentions that it will also apply if location of supplier as well as the recipient is outside India.
 
 
On the given case, there are divergent views of experts, one being that the given case is outside the purview of GST as both the supplier and recipient are outside . In this regard, there is another view which states that in this case, the section 13 will not apply at all as this transaction is out of purview of GST law. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention here that CGST will be levied if transaction falls in charging section 9 of CGST Act, 2017 and IGST will be levied if the transaction falls in purview of charging section 5 of IGST Act, 2017.

 
Section 9 of CGST Act, 2017; there shall be levied a tax called the central goods and services tax on all intra-State supplies of goods or services or both..." Likewise,charging section 5 of IGST Act, 2017 states that "there shall be levied a tax called the integrated goods and services tax on all inter-State supplies of goods or services or both.." Therefore, to fall in the provisions of CGST Act and IGST Act; there has to beeither intra-state or inter-state supply.
 
 
To determine whether a transaction is intra-state or interstate, provisions of section 7 to 9 of IGST Act, 2017 are applicable. The provisions of section 7 are applicable to determine the "inter-state supply". The relevant provisions from this section as applicable in case of renting of immovable property service are produced as follows:-
 
Section 7(3):-
 
 
(3) Subject to the provisions of section 12, supply of services, where the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in––
 
(a) two different States;
 
(b) two different Union territories; or (c) a State and a Union territory,
shall be treated as a supply of services in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
 
 
This section is not applicable in the given case as the two different states here means "states located in India". Since both the service provider and recipient are located outside India, this clause does not apply here.
 
Section 7(4):-
 
 
(4) Supply of services imported into the territory of India shall be treated to be a supply of services in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
 
 
This section is also not applicable as under section 2(11) of IGST Act, 2017, import of service is there if the service provider is located outside India, service recipient is located in India and place of supply is in India. In the given case, both service provider and recipient are located outside India, therefore, this clause is not applicable.
 
Section 7(5):-

(5) Supply of goods or services or both,––
 
(a) when the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outside India; (b) to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit; or
 
(c) in the taxable territory, not being an intra-State supply and not covered elsewhere in this section,
 
shall be treated to be a supply of goods or services or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
 
 
The given case will fall under the residual clause (c) of section 7(5). Accordingly, the supply of service will be treated as inter-state supply and provisions of IGST Act, 2017 will apply.
 
 
So, it is ample clear that the IGST Act will apply in the given case even if the supplier of service and recipient of service are located outside India.
 
In view of above discussion, it is clear that the intention of government is clear to levy the tax in cases where the place of supply is in India. Accordingly, we can say that the section 13 of IGST Act can be liberally interpreted to include the given case also. Therefore, holding this view, the provider of renting service will be required to get himself registered in India.
 
Now, interestingly, since the supplier will get registered in India, the location of supplier and place of supply will be in the same state; accordingly, the case will come out of purview of section 13 and will fall in section 12 of IGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the CGST and SGST will be payable.
 
Again, there is another view that in case of immovable property, it cannot be said that merely because immovable property is situated, it cannot be said that there is some fixed establishment as there are no human and other resources and as such it cannot be termed as place of business. If this view is accepted, there will be problem as to where the registration is to be taken. Thus, by accepting this view, though the transaction falls in purview of charging section but the subsequent sections fail. Therefore, again there is confusion on the issue of registration in the given case.
 
The above discussion clearly indicates that there is lot of anomaly in the given situation and it is surely to attract the litigation. Though it is a rare phenomenon, yet, if there are any such cases, the litigation is inbuilt.
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