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/2018-2019/3490

Whether the Printing of Religious Texts for foreign party and delivering in India would amount to “Supply of Goods” or “Supply of Services”?
Case:SWAPNA PRINTING WORKS PVT LTD
Citation:28/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 21.12.2018 (ARN: AD 1909180002236)
Issue:  Whether the Printing of Religious Texts for foreign party and delivering in India would amount to “Supply of Goods” or “Supply of Services”?
Whether this activity can be termed as an “Export”.   
Brief facts:The applicant company Swapna Printing Works Pvt. Ltd., 52,Raja Rammohan Roy Sarani, Amherst Street, Kolkata-700009is engaged in the business of Printing registered with GSTN 19AADCS8593E1ZW. It procured an order from a foreign party to print religious texts and then to deliver them to various places in India.It made an application to the Advance ruling authority to know if such activity classifies as 'Supply of goods' or 'Supply of services' – It also seeks to know whether such activity can classify as 'export'.
 
Appellant’s contention:  The Applicant is in the business of printing books and binding them. It has received a specific order from a popular foreign customer, namely Gideons International, for printing and binding Bibles. The version of the Bible is specified by the customer under the Evangelistic version of the text. Under the Berne Convention, the copyright is granted to the author on the creation of work, but in the case of religious texts copyrights are granted to editions if they are unique or are translations. In the United Kingdom, the King James' Version of the Bible is covered by a Crown Copyright. The Gideons International uses the King James' version of the Bible and distributes various editions of the same. The versions that the Applicant prints for The Gideons International mention the name of the organization and establish their rights on those versions.
 
Respondent’s Contention and reasoning of Judgement: On the basis of the Content of the Appellant, it becomes clear that the rights of the content of the printed matter do not lie with the Applicant. It can be said that the Applicant is providing a composite supply wherein the supply of printing content, is the principal supply and the physical inputs, such as paper, ink, binding material, labour etc., are ancillary to this principal supply. It is also clarified that the applicant does not hold the title of the Rights of the matter printed. However TRU Clarification issued under F. No. 354/263/2017-TRU dated 20th October 2017 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, clearly states in Serial no. 4 that :
In case of printing of books, pamphlets, brochures, annual reports, and the like, where only content is supplied by the publisher or the person who owns the usage rights to the intangible inputs while the physical inputs including paper used for printing belongs to the printer, supply of printing [of content supplied by the recipient of supply] is the principal supply and therefore such supplies would constitute supply of service falling under heading 9989 of the scheme of classification of services."
The Applicant's activity fits this description and to be classified as "supply of services" under the GST Act and such activity, unless anything is found to the contrary, will be leviable to GST @ 12% under Serial No. 27(i) of Notification No 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended by Notification No 31/2017-CT(Rate) dated 13.10.2017.
The Applicant also submitted photocopies of purchase orders received from The Gideons International (PO18449 dated 23/02/2018 and PO18765 dated 31/08/2018), and Tax Invoice No. 29/08/2018 dated 29/08/2016, as a prototype of such invoices. It appears from the purchase orders that printed copies of the Bible are required to be delivered to the recipient's branch in India who also take delivery on behalf of The Gideons International. Such persons, who receive the supply on behalf of the recipient, are also considered recipient, as defined under section 2(93) of the GST Act. The Applicant is, therefore, supplying the service of printing the Bible (the purchase orders and the tax invoice refer to supplying of printing service classifiable under heading 9989) to the recipient located in India. It is, therefore, obvious from the above discussions that the Applicant's supply is not the export of service, as the recipient of the service is located in India. It violates clause (b) of section 2(6) of the IGST Act which states that the recipient of service must be located outside of India.
Decision: The Applicant's activity of printing the Bible under the specific orders received from The Gideons International is a supply of service classifiable under SAC 9989. The above service is supplied to the recipient located in India and the consideration is apparently received in INR. The basic condition for export of service is that the amount should be received in convertible foreign currency. Hence, it cannot be termed as export of service. The Applicant is, therefore, liable to pay GST under the appropriate Act on such supplies.
Comment:  In the above case, the jist of CBIC circular has been taken into consideration and it was concluded that the Printing of books by SWAPNA PRINTING WORKS PVT LTD would amount to Supply of “Services” and not Supply of “Goods” as contend of the book belong to author. Though the material like paper, ink etc. is also used by supplier but the principal supply is of printing of content. Hence, following the concept of composite supply under Section 2(30) of CGST Act, the complete activity will be classified as supply of service.
 
Similarly, in case of heart surgery also, where value of material like stent is high, however, it will be classified as health care service because, the principal supply is of treatment of patient. Similarly,  in case of job work by textile processors, the value of material like chemical, dye, coal, packing material etc. may be high but the principal supply is service of job work, hence it will be classified as supply of service.
Prepared by:  Adit Gupta
 
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