Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3557

Whether GST will be applicable on the transfer of title in moulds from applicant to Indian buyer?
Automative Components Technology India Private Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Order No. 05/ARA/2020 dated 31.01.2020
 
Brief Facts: -The applicant is engaged in the supply of automotive components. They have stated that they agree to supply certain parts, including moulds to Indian Company located in the State of Tamil Nadu, for which they place an order for manufacturing the said parts and moulds on a Thailand Company. The parts manufactured are physically imported, while the moulds developed are retained in Thailand and are not physically imported into India, but the ownership in the mould is transferred from the foreign supplier to the Applicant and from the applicant to the Indian buyer by raising of separate invoices. Thus, with regard to the moulds, there are two transactions involved inthe present case:
 
T1: Transfer of title in moulds from the foreign supplier to the Applicant.
 
T2: Transfer of title in moulds from the Applicant to the Indian buyer.
 
They have also stated that the moulds are never physically imported into India. Themoulds will be disposed as waste in Thailand after its usage for manufacturing the requisite parts.
 
Issue:-
  • Whether GST will be applicable on the transfer of title in moulds from applicant to Indian buyer?
  • If yes, whether the Indian buyer would be eligible to take credit of the GST paid to the applicant for said purchase?
 
 Appellant’s Contention:- The applicant on his interpretation of law has stated that on application of Section 10 (1)(c) of IGST Act 2017, the place of supply is Thailand and the supplier is in India, therefore the supply could get covered under the ambit of Inter-State Supply in terms of IGST Act, but IGST levy can be imposed only to supplies within the territorial jurisdiction of the IGST Act. The applicant has stated that the supply in the case at hand takes place outside the territorial jurisdiction of IGST Act and thereby not subject to IGST and has sought to clarify the applicability of GST in the said transaction.
 
Further, the applicant contends that the said transaction does not constituteimport of goods as there is no physical movement of goods into India. Thus thetransactions do not qualify as an inter-state or intra state supply of goods andwould fall outside the purview of CGST/SGST/IGST. They have also stated thattransaction was not taxable under the erstwhile indirect tax.
Further, the applicant has submitted that if at all tax is applicable on thetransaction then input tax credit of the same should be available to the recipient of Supply. The applicant has stated that ITCshould be applicable as per section 16(2)(b) of CGST Act 2017. The Applicantcontends that if a transaction is hold to be liable qua the supplier and not thegoods or services or both, then in the same analogy on the very transaction thecredit of input tax needs to be allowed based on the recipient and not whether thegoods or services or both had been received or not. If the transaction is deemed to be an inter-state supply and if the same is made liable to GST, then it should be deemed that such goods have been received from perspective and the credit shouldaccordingly be made available to him.
 
M/s. Nissan Motors India Pvt Ltd had placed an order for manufacture of tool/mould basis which  the applicant has placed an order for manufacturing the same with MSC Thailand. The 'Tool Ownership Certificate' is issued by the applicant on NMIPL as transfer of title in ownership of tools on payment of consideration.The tools shall be property of NMIPL only. The cost of the mould   has not   been   amortized   in the present transaction.The price of the manufactured mould/tools has been received by the applicant by raising a separate invoice.
 
Reasoning of Advance Ruling:-
 
The Act limits the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the issues earmarked for it under Section 97(2) and no other issue can be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority. Of the above questions on which ruling is sought by the applicant, relates to eligibility to credit of tax paid by them at their buyers'end.
 
The eligibility to credit of input tax paid by the applicant alone is covered underclause (d) of Section 97(2) above and the eligibility at the buyers' hand when raised by an applicant do not fall under any of the category specified under Section 97(2)of the Act and therefore not within the ambit of this authority.
 
However, the authority has given its ruling for the first question raised about GST taxability on transfer of title in moulds from applicant to Indian Buyer.
Taking into consideration, Vendor Tooling PO and Tool Ownership Certificate', it is evident that the moulds and tools shall upon completion of the cycle life of the moulds be disposed off in the premises of such parts manufacturer as maybe agreed in the future between the parties/ approval of Nissan Motors India Pvt Ltd.
The moulds/tools remains with the manufacturer for manufacturing the parts, i.e., the moulds aresupplied free of cost to the parts manufacturer and it is stated that the cost of themoulds are not amortised in the parts cost.
 
Supply is defined under Section 7 of the CGST Act 2017 andthe same is reproduced below for reference:
 
7. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the expression "supply" includes-
 
(a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer,barter, exchange, Iicence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be madefor a consideration be a person in the course or furtherance of business;
 
(1A) where certain activities or transactions constitute a supply in accordancewith the provisions of sub-section (1), they shall be treated either as supply ofgoods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.;
 
 
Schedule II determines the list of activities to be considered as supply ofgoods/Services and entry Sl.No. 1 is as follows:
 
1. Transfer
 
(a) any transfer of the title in goods is a supply of goods;
 
From the above, it is evident that 'transfer of the title in goods' is supply of goods.In the case at hand there is transfer in title of moulds for a consideration and thesupply is in the course of business therefore, the same constitutes supply of goodsand GST is liable to be paid on such supply.
 
Ruling:-
  • GST is applicable on the transfer of title in moulds from the appellant to the India Buyer.
  • The Question is not answered as the same is not in the ambit of this authority as per section 97(2) of the Act.
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