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/2020-2021/3579

Whether the issue of Own Closed PPIs by the ‘Applicant’ to customers be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as defined under the provisions of the GST?
Kalyan Jewellers India Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Order No. 52/ARA/2019dated 25.11.2019
Brief Facts-The Applicant is carrying on the business of Manufacturing and Trading of Jewellery Products in Tamil Nadu as well as across different states in India. KJIL is a Manufacturer and Trader in Gold and other Jewellery items through their retail outlets and also online portal. KJIL, as part of sales promotion, introduced the facility of issuing different types of Pre-Paid Instruments ((herein after referred as PPI’s) to their customers through their retail outlets as well as engaging third party online portal. These PPIs are generally called as “Gift Vouchers / Gift Cards” in the trade Practice. The PPIs are subject to Payment and Settlement Act 2007.
The taxpayer issued its PPIs (closed-ended PPIs), at face value, to its customers, which can be redeemed at any outlet of the taxpayer, across the country, for purchase of jewellery. Separately, the taxpayer has issued its PPIs to the third party at a discount, and the said third party, in turn, would issue the said PPIs at face value to the end customers (semi-closed PPIs).
Issues-
  1. Whether the issue of Own Closed PPIs by the ‘Applicant’ to customers be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as defined under the provisions of the GST?
  2. If yes, is the time of issue of Own Closed PPIs by the ‘Applicant’ to customers is the time of supply of goods or services warranting tax liability
  3. If yes, what is rate of taxes applicable for such supply of goods or services as the case may be
  4. If yes, whether the issue of PPIs by Third Party PPI Issuers subject to GST at the time of issue in their Hands
  5. Whether the amount received by the ‘Applicant’ from Third party PPI issuers subject to GST
  6. If No, GST collection at the time of sale of goods or services on redemption of PPIs i.e. own and from Third Party will be a sufficient compliance of the Provisions of the CGST Act.
  7. What is the treatment of Discount (the difference between Face value and discounted value) in the hands of issuer of PPI in case of third party PPIs. Whether the ‘Applicant’ will be liable to pay GST on this difference Value
 
Applicant’s Contentions- The applicant contended that PPIs are not goods for the following reasons-
  • PPIs are governed by a Master Direction issued by Reserve Bank of India w.e.f. 11-10-2017 under Section -18 read with Section 10(2) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007.
  • PPI’s are a kind of ‘Actionable Claim’ as defined under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  • Equivalent to money
  • As defined under Clause 6 of the Schedule III to the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 the PPIs are excluded from the levy of GST, as it is a kind of actionable claim.
  • As there is no element of manufacturing process involved in the scope for the levy of Central Excise Duty was absent, hence Central Excise not levied on this kind of Vouchers (PPIs).
  • The levy of Octroi or Local Body Tax by Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (Act No.LIX of 1949) on “Sodexo Meal Vouchers” treating as goods was not sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/s. Sodexo Sve India Pvt LTd Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Wherein, the Hon’ble Court has treated `Sodex Meal vouchers’ as expenditure incurred by such employer and amenity in the hands of employee, nothing but salary, as defined under Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
 
> PPIs are not services for the following reasons-
  • levy of Service Tax was started in 1994 on selected services, where there was no scope for the levy of Service Tax on PPIs issued.
  • In the case of Union of India Vs. Delhi Chit Fund Association (2014) 43 GST 524 (SC), it was held that in a mere transaction of money or actionable claim no service was involved and no service tax leviable.
  • In H.Anraj Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu in AIR 1986 SC 63, 71 the elements of actionable claims are framed as under:-
            i) Any type of debt other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable or             hypothecation or pledge.
            ii) Any beneficial interest in movable property not in possession.
  • In the case of Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd Vs. Union of India (2008) 14 STI’ 242 (Sikkim), relying on M/s. Sunrise Associates Vs. Union of India (2006) held that Lottery Ticket is an ‘Actionable Claim’.
 
> PPI contains two parts namely:-
(i) In first part, deposit of money for which PPI is being issued which is not service. In Banks no service tax is being levied for such deposit/receipt of money.
(ii) In second part, the money so received is being utilized/ adjusted for sale of Jewellery, for which GST is leviable at the time of supply of Jewellery, as the PPI’s is merged with a supply of goods and the scope for levy of service tax is completely absent.
> The time of supply of goods/services, where vouchers are involved, it is specified under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 85 Section 13 of the GST Act as under;
i) the date of issue of voucher, if the supply is identifiable at that point;or
ii) the date of redemption of vouchers, in all other cases.
> In this case, the supply is not identifiable, as the Jewellery is class of goods comprising of numerous items of gold or diamond jewellery and exact item of goods are not identifiable or ascertainable at the time of issue of voucher (PPI), hence time of supply could not be fixed for the levy at the time of issue of vouchers (PPIs).
> Moreover it is an actionable claim, will not come under the purview of GST as per the Clause 6 to the Schedule III to the GST Act.
Reasoning by Authority and Decision-On the various issues raised before the AAR, the authority observed as under:
  1. PPIs are not an actionable claim - It is not a claim to debt, nor does it give a beneficial interest in any movable property to the bearer of the instrument. If the holder of the gift card/ voucher loses or misplaces it and is unable to produce it before the taxpayer stores before the time limit specified on the card/ voucher, the instrument itself becomes invalid. Then the customer cannot use it to pay for any goods. Thus it is not an actionable claim as defined under the Transfer of Property Act. It is only an instrument accepted as consideration/part consideration while purchasing the goods from the issuer, and the identity of the supplier is established in the PPI.
  2. PPIs are vouchers/goods under the CGST Act - It qualifies as a voucher as defined under Section 2(118) of the CGST Act since it would be accepted as a consideration against the purchase of goods. The voucher has both a value and ownership and is the property of whoever first purchases or redeems it and is movable. It is neither money nor actionable claim, as discussed above. Hence, these gift vouchers/ cards issued by the taxpayer are ‘goods’ as per Section 2(52) of the CGST Act.
  3. Time of supply - As mentioned by the taxpayer, PPIs are redeemable against any jewellery purchase. Accordingly, the time of supply of PPIs is the date of redemption of PPIs.
The authority has held that paper-based Pre-paid Payment Instruments (‘PPIs’) are classifiable under chapter heading 4911 (subject to GST at 12%) and plastic gift cards under chapter heading 8523 (subject to GST at 18%).
Prepared by- CA Preksha Jain 
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