SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Mahashtra election: Cash of Rs 86 lakh recovered from car in MumbaiCBDT clarifies on CoD for returns claiming deduction u/s 80P for AY 2023-24 + specifies Forms for rollback of APA & applications u/s 35CCCCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold and silverUK Budget to mop up 40 bn pound from tax hikes for wealthy BritonsVietnamese, Philippine exports to America surge for second consecutive quarter as global supply chain shiftsUN calls for probe of killings in Bangladesh protestsChina’s factory output & services perk up in Oct monthChina initiates probe against AstraZenca chief in ChinaN Korean troops to return in body bags if they enter Ukraine: USUS economy grows by 2.8% in Q3National Internet Exchange of India unveils new office at World Trade Centre, New DelhiCus - CBIC appoints adjudicators for 60 casesIndian Railways signs MoU with Switzerland's DETEC to enhance Technological CollaborationGST - Working of Rule 96(10) has resulted in hostile discrimination amongst exporters who opt to apply for a refund u/s 16(3)(a) of IGST Act r/w Rule 89 of the CGST Rules and those who opt to apply for a refund in the manner contemplated by s.16(3)(b) - Rule 96(10) is manifestly arbitrary, hence ultra vires: HC51 killed in devastating flooding in SpainGST - Circular 231 prevails over the impugned order - ITC benefit available on demo vehicles: HCIndia-China border disengagement enters into last stretchGST - Secondment of employees - IGST demand - SCNs are rendered impotent in view of Board Circular 210/4/2024 - When value of services is accepted as Nil, no further tax implication would arise: HCUN says West Asia is at ‘most dangerous juncture’ amid rising Israel-Iran mercuryGST - It is not for this Court to be boggled by or question the wisdom of the CBIC as the Circular in any case binds the respondents: HCGST - Establishing that Appeal memo was signed by authorised signatory - Bench does not approve of the appellate authorities adopting shortcuts and dismissing the appeals: HCGST - Plea of the petitioner having an alternative remedy cannot be accepted as violation of principles of natural justice is an exception to the said plea: HCCX - Cash refund is not permissible where an assessee is unable to utilize credit on Inputs upon closure of unit - CESTAT orders are not error-prone: HCWheeling and Dealing: The Taxing Tale of Demo VehiclesCus - CBIC releases revised list of high-end refurbished medical equipmentCX - Govt notifies concessional excise duty for operators under UDANMudra Yojana: Loan Limit raised to Rs 20 Lakh from Rs 10 LakhGST & Customs relief to reduce MRP of 3 Anti-cancer Drugs: GovtI-T - Purchase of rights shares which does not contribute to income of assessee, can't be taxed: HCESIC network up from 393 Districts to 674 Districts now: Union Minister
 
GST and Corporate Guarantee

NOVEMBER 17, 2023

By Vinod Yadav

AFTER much hue and cry over the taxability of Corporate Guarantee (CG) that was mostly triggered by the indiscriminate notices issued by various Govt agencies to various corporates, finally the government touched upon the subject by inserting Rule 28(2) in CGST Rules, 2017, clearing the cobwebs that it indeed is taxable.

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the value of supply of services by a supplier to a recipient who is a related person, by way of providing corporate guarantee to any banking company or financial institution on behalf of the said recipient, shall be deemed to be one per cent of the amount of such guarantee offered, or the actual consideration, whichever is higher.".

Apparently, instead of dwelling on the taxability aspect, it goes a step further by defining the value of supply effective from 26th October, 2023, making taxability of the levy tacit.

Going by the wordings of the aforesaid sub-rule, it gets implied that the levy exists for the prior period also.

In view of above, unless the appropriate valuation method is adopted, the authorities may construe that the taxable value is the amount of corporate guarantee provided by the guarantor as if vindicating the notices sent to corporates earlier by various government agencies.

Nonetheless, there are a plethora of other issues also which are anticipated to be raised in future, especially in the cases where the CG is issued by the overseas holding company to the overseas bankers of the Indian subsidiary company:

- While the scope of service of CG appears a far cry without contractual agreement between the guarantor and the borrower, but even if it is treated as service, it looks unreasonable to consider the same as provided to the recipient in India.

- Treating such action as a 'Shareholder function' is another tangle which rules the levy out of the tax ambit.

- Thirdly, place of provision is another grey area in case, both the guarantor and the bank are located out of India.

- It seems 1% of the CG provided as taxable service sounds arbitrary and devoid of any accepted norms or method.

- Time of supply is way too ambiguous to adopt - whether date of issue of CG or when the CG is actually invoked or as and when the amount of loan is actually disbursed to the borrower.

- Adoption of valuation mechanism is another dicey problem when there is no consideration involved - whether to arrive at Open Market Value or to take 0.5% as in case of TP or the Residual Method as the last resort.

With all such ambiguous issues, there may be no guarantee of solace for Corporates to take a proper course of action on this 'service'.

As such, the government may incorporate some more clarifications via circulars which could reasonably guarantee (pun added) dispute-free levy and ITC.

[The author is Lead-GST, Calderys India Refractories Limited and the views expressed are strictly personal.]

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)

 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: corporate guaranree

as per the decision of supreme court in the matter of xilinx india technology services private limited reported in tiol 2023 ,1164, the foreign registered company is not a distinct or related person since the company has its own legal existance from shareholders.

hence rule 28 with sub rule 2 can be said to be applicable in that scene, i doubt

Posted by Navin Khandelwal
 

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Conferment of TIOL Awards 2024. The event was held on October 1, 2024 at Taj Palace, New Delhi

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Technical Session I - Ease of Doing Business: GST on Digital Economy

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST