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

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3521

Whether the “Commission” received by the applicant for providing services as an “Intermediary” between an exporter and an Indian importer, is an “export of service” falling under Section 2(6)?
CASE LAW


Case
:VISHAKHAR PRASHANT BHAVE
Citation:GST-ARA-23/2018-19/B-87-Mumbai
Issue: Whether the “Commission” received by the applicant for providing services as an “Intermediary” between an exporter and an Indian importer, is an “export of service” falling under Section 2(6)?
Brief Facts:  The Applicant,  Ms. Vishaka Prashant Bhave, is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Micro Instruments, Mumbai, is a sole Proprietary Concern, duly Registered under the CGST/SGST and IGST Acts having  Reg. no. 27AHSPB0847K1Z2 and is carrying on trading business in Laboratory Instruments, its spare parts, Laboratory Equipment, and other related activities . One of the activities of Micro relates to providing services to its Principals at Germany, by way of procuring Purchase Orders (P.O.) from the parties desirous of purchasing advanced type of Laboratory Equipment, by negotiating the terms of supply including fixation of price above the floor price fixed by the Principals (known to the Applicant alone). If Micro can negotiate better price than the floor price, the difference between the floor price and actual price is given to Micro by way of “Commission” in “convertible foreign exchange”
Appellant’s contention: The applicant contended that the commission received by them in in International/cross border transaction, for acting as a Broker or facilitator, in procuring from an Indian Customer/s purchase order for importing Laboratory Equipment from Germany in convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an “intermediary” between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of an Equipment is an export of service and outside the purview of section 13(8)(b) and attracting zero rated tax under section 16(1)(a) of the IGST act.
Respondent’s Contention & Reasoning of Judgment:As refers to the section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017 defined intermediary , in simple terms “intermediary” can be explained as a firm or a person, etc. who acts as a link between parties for the conduction of business. From the above definition we find that an intermediary can be a broker, an agent or any other person who arranges and facilitates the supply of goods and/or services between two or more persons and who cannot change the nature of supply as provided by the principal. Since the applicant, being the supplier of service is located in India and the recipient of Service i.e. supplier of goods is located outside India, Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 would be applicable to determine the place of service and the place of supply of services in the instant case is in taxable territory, the said intermediary services cannot be treated as export of services under the provisions of the GST laws.Section 8 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with the provisions of intra-State.  Applying the provisions of Section 8(2) which states that ‘subject to the provisions of Section 12, in case where the location of the supplier and the place of supply of services are in the same State or in the same Union territory, the supply of service shall be treated as intra-State supply’. As per intra-State provisions contained in Section 8(2), the said provisions are subject to the provisions of Section 12 of the IGST Act. As per Section 12, the provisions of Section 12 would be applicable only for determining the place of supply of service where the location of supplier of services and the recipient of the services is in India. When recipient is located outside India the said provisions of Section 12 cannot be made applicable and since provisions of Section 8(2) are inter-linked with provisions of Section 12, the same cannot be made applicable in case the recipient of service is located outside India. Thus we find that in case the intermediary services are provided to the recipient located outside India, the inter-state provisions as contained under Section 7(5)(c) shall be applicable and hence IGST is payable under such transaction.
Decision:  Services provided by applicant falls under sec 7(5) (c) of IGST Act, and IGST is payable under such transaction.
Comment: The phrase ‘supply of services in the taxable territory’ is to be determined in general terms like if the service provider is located in India, it shall be considered that services have been provided in India. Like in the present case, since Appellant has providing the services of commission agent, it shall be considered that the services have been provided in India and by virtue of the provision contained in section 7(5) (c), it will be considered as inter-state supply on which IGST will be payable, IGST will be payable in the present case by appellant.
 
Prepared by Kasif
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