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

PJ/Case Law/2016-2017/3459

Whether Supply together of UPS and batteries is Composite supply vis-a-vis Mixed supply or Bundled supply for payment of GST.
Case: SWITCHING AVO ELECTRO POWER LTD.
Citation:2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 84 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue: Whether Supply together of UPS and batteries is Composite supply vis-a-vis Mixed supply or Bundled supply for payment of GST.
Brief facts: The issues involved in the appeals are filed by SWITCHING AVO ELECTRO POWER LTD.hereinafter referred to as the assessee) The assessee is the supplier of power solutions, including UPS, servo stabilizer, batteries etc., have filed an application, on 21-3-2018, for advance ruling under Composite Supply within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the GST Act”).
Appellant’s contention:The Applicant, stated to be a supplier of power solutions, including UPS, servo stabilizer, batteries etc. Note 3 to Section XVI of the Tariff Act defines a composite machine as the one consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole. Such machines, as well as other machines designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions, are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine, which performs the principal function. Applicability of Note 3 to Section XVI of the Tariff Act (hereinafter referred to as “Note 3”) is, however, not absolute, but subject to the context in which it is being applied. In the present context, Note 3 is applicable subject to the definitions of composite supply and its taxability under Section 8(a) of the GST Act.
Note 3; therefore, is applicable, in this context, to composite machines. Other machines, designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions, however, can be classified with the help of Note 3 only if they are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with one another in the ordinary course of business. A UPS is classified under Tariff Head 8504. It is an electrical apparatus that provides emergency power to a load when the input power source or mains power fails. The UPS serves no purpose if the battery is not supplied or removed. It cannot function as a UPS unless the battery is attached. However, what needs to be considered is whether or not these two items are naturally bundled”.The stated Illustration to Section 2(30) of the GST Act refers to a supply where the ancillary supplies are inseparable from the principal supply and form an integral part of the composite supply. Note 3 also refers to a composite machine as the one consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole. When a UPS is supplied with built-in batteries so that supply of the battery is inseparable from supply of the UPS, it should be treated as a composite supply and as a composite machine in terms of Note 3. The UPS being the principal supply, the relevant tariff head for the composite supply will be 8504 under Serial No. 375 of Schedule III in terms of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (1125-FT, dated 28-6-2017 of the State tax).
 The applicant insists that as the battery, being supplied as part of an integral contract, remains naturally bundled with UPS - the principal supply. If a combination of goods that does not amount to a composite supply is being offered at a single price, such supplies are to be treated as mixed supplies. Mixed supply is defined under Section 2(74) of the GST Act as one where two or more individual supplies of goods/services or any combination thereof, made in conjunction with each other by a taxable person for a single price where such supply does not constitute a composite supply.
Respondent’s contention: The Authority for Advance Ruling stated that it has considered the submissions made by the Rabindra Agarwal, Director, for the Applicant in their application for advance ruling.It has also considered the question/issue on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant, relevant facts having bearing on the question/issue raised, and the applicant’s understanding/interpretation of law in respect of the issue. The applicant sought advance ruling on the question that whether Supply together of UPS and batteries is Composite supply vis-a-vis Mixed supply or Bundled supply for payment of GST. Supply of UPS with Battery is not indivisible as it can be split in two separate supplies if so desired by recipient - As per GST law, if a combination of goods that does not amount to a composite supply is being offered at a single price, such supplies are to be treated as mixed supplies - Based on information supplied by applicant, it is Ruled that supply of UPS and Batteries in this case would be a Mixed supply as defined under Section 2(74) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and taxable accordingly, i.e., higher of two rates - Sections 2(30) and 2(74) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The supply of UPS and Battery is to be considered as Mixed Supply within the meaning of Section 2(74) of the GST Act, as they are supplied under a single contract at a combined single price.
Decision: The advance ruling is in favour of the applicant.
Comment: The gist of the case is that if a combination of goods that does not amount to a composite supply is being offered at a single price, such supplies are to be treated as mixed supplies. Supply of UPS and Batteries in this case would be a Mixed Supply as defined under Section 2(74) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and taxable accordingly.
Prepared by: Bhavika Kanjani
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