Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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