Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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