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

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