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 TREATMENT OF STEEL DIE INVOICED TO FOREIGN BUYER BUT SCRAPPED IN INDIA 64/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON TREATMENT OF STEEL DIE INVOICED TO FOREIGN BUYER BUT SCRAPPED IN INDIA 64/2020-21
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling has recently pronounced an interesting decision in the case of M/s Dolphine Die Cast (P) Ltd  wherein it has discussed in detail the treatment to be done in case where the steel dies used in manufacture of aluminium and zinc die castings were invoiced to the foreign buyer which were subsequently either exported to the foreign buyer or scrapped at the applicant’s end as per the instructions of the foreign buyer.
The applicant is a manufacturer and exporter of Aluminium and Zinc die Castings to the overseas customer. The applicant first manufactures the die mould as per the requirements and specification given by the customer. This die is retained by the applicant and is used for the manufacture and supply of Aluminium and Zinc die Castings. The applicant raises the tax invoice for this steel die in the name of overseas customer in foreign currency for receipt of payment though the die is rarely exported as per instructions of the customer. After the completion of the export order or completion of the die life, applicant either exports the dies to the overseas customer or scraps the die at applicant’s end as per the instruction of the customer.
Similarly, the applicant is an importer of the Aluminium casting and pressure die casting component of Aluminium from Thailand. The Thailand supplier first manufactures die as per the requirement and specifications given by the applicant and uses the same for the manufacture of the Aluminium casting and pressure die casting component of Aluminium for the applicant. The Thailand supplier raises the tax invoice in the name of the applicant though the die is not physically imported. After completion of the order or completion of the die life, the applicant either imports the dies and returns to the domestic customer or as per the instruction of the domestic customer the applicant inform the Thailand supplier to scrap the die at their end.
The applicant seeks advance ruling on taxability of the above transactions and admissibility of input tax credit.
The AAR ruled that in the case of manufacture of die by the applicant and invoiced to the overseas recipient, without moving the goods, the applicant has to raise the tax invoice addressed to the foreign buyer. The place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India, shall be the location of such goods at the time of the delivery to the recipient as per section 10(1)(c) of the IGST Act 2017. Therefore, the place of supply of die in this case is the location of the applicant.
In view of the above, the location of the supplier of die and place of supply of die are one and the same i.e., location of the applicant and such being the case said transaction shall be treated as intra-state transaction. Since it is an intra-state supply, applicant has to collect CGST and SGST and discharge the liability. The applicant is not eligible to claim said payment as input tax credit on the invoice raised by him as he is not the recipient. Further if the said steel die is scrapped at applicant’s end as per the instruction of the overseas customer, while supplying the die scrap to the third party, the applicant has to issue intra/interstate tax invoice depending upon the nature of the transaction and collect and pay the applicable tax as per the provisions of the GST Act.
In the case of manufacture of die by the Thailand supplier, if applicant physically imports the die to a place in India then applicant has to pay the IGST under reverse charge mechanism and claim the IGST tax paid as input tax credit, subject to conditions applicable. Further if the steel die belonging to the applicant is scrapped at the location of the overseas supplier without die coming to India, then such transaction is occurring outside the taxable territory, i.e. India and hence not under the purview of GST Act.
This advance ruling raises various questions in the minds of the assessee as regards the transaction of supplying aluminium castings to the overseas buyer is concerned. One such question is whether raising of invoice for die without physically sending die abroad attracts the provisions of section 10(1)(c) of IGST Act, 2017? The reasoning adopted by the AAR is that since export of goods means taking out of India to a place outside India, and as this criteria is not fulfilled for the steel dies, the place of supply will be determined by invoking provisions of section 10 of the IGST Act, 2017 which prescribes place of supply of goods other than supply of goods imported into or exported from India. By application of this provision, the applicant is required to consider the transaction of selling of steel die to the overseas customer without physical delivery of said settle die as intra-state transaction attracting CGST and SGST of Karnataka. We all have basic perception in our minds that sale involves movement of goods but the provisions contained in section 10(1)(c) of the IGST Act, 2017 seeks to levy GST even if there is sale of goods without movement of such goods. The common example framed in our minds for this section 10(1)(c) was that of showroom sales but this advance ruling has changed our perception as regards application of the provision of section 10(1)(c) of the IGST Act, 2017.
Now further another question arises is as to whether the title of goods is transferred to foreign buyer when the goods does not move from the premises and also the scrap is also to be sold by Indian supplier in India only. Hence, it is clear when the title of goods is transferred then only supply will take place. If it is not a supply of goods, can it be termed as export of service of “ manufacturing of die steel” and will qualify for export of service. There are number of questions are raised in this advance ruling and each one is to be decided on facts of each case.

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