News Update

Violence in Delhi - HM asks all parties to rise above party linesEESL completes a decade of helping India become energy efficientCBIC hikes tariff value for Gold5 SC judges catch H1N1 flu; Govt scrambles to take preventive stepsGST - Anti-Profiteering - Sanitary Napkins - Order of NAA stayed: HCCX - assessee is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on group medical insurance policy taken for employees: CESTATCus - Where limitation period for converting drawback shipping bills into DFIA bills is not provided in Customs Act, same cannot be fixed through a Circular - time limit fixed by Circular is only procedural & lacks authority of statutory provision: CESTATST - Consideration is essential pre-requisite for rendering any service - no tax leviable if such element is missing & if business is conducted on principal-to-principal basis: CESTATCharges of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, are not sustainable, if additional income declared by assessee in returns is accepted by AO: ITATDisallowance made u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D is not tenable if quantum of interest-free funds exceed that of investments made: ITATNo enduring benefit arises from raising finances to fund a specialised job - cost incurred thereto is not capital expenditure: ITATACC issues appointment order of 17 Joint Secretaries, including an IRS officerCBDT lists 20 most contended issues - Govt to move SC to club all pending cases and dispose them, says Revenue SecretaryComputing profits from life insurance business, when computed u/s 44 r/w I-T Rules, do not entail an embargo on conducting scrutiny assessment: HCST - RTO charges and extra charges related thereto does not fall under BSS: CESTATChange in accounting method, resulting in disallowance of indirect expenses incurred, is not tantamount to concealing particulars of income - no penalty imposable: HCCX - Statutory return not designed to capture the particular grade/specification of material required for manufacture - For manufacture of automobile axle, 6 mm size of H.R. coil required, however, credit taken on other than 6mm and is rightly denied: CESTATUn-utilised amount received as grant from Government, cannot ipso facto be treated as income of the recipient of such amount: HCCX - Data retrieved from computer hard drive cannot be relied upon as evidence where computer was used by multiple persons & if no certificate u/s 36B of CEA is furnished in its support: CESTATRe-opening of assessment is invalidated if based on material already on record during original assessment proceedings & is tantamount to change of opinion: ITATST - Circular dated 18.05.2017 clarifies that turnover/transaction charges are to be included in gross value when computing service tax liability - penalties imposed are upheld if assessee collects an amount representing service tax, but does not deposit same: CESTATOyo, MakeMyTrip invite CCI eyeballs; Probe orderedFATF puts Mauritius on Grey List, triggers panic among FDI carriersPradhan invites investments, Technology Transfer into Indian Steel SectorShooters can now keep more firearms and ammunitionGST - Anti-Profiteering - Petitions challenging constitutional validity of s.171 of the CGST Act r/w rule 126 of CGST Rules and pending before Bombay HC, P&H HC transferred to Delhi HC (where 20 petitions are pending on subject matter) in the interest of uniform and consistent view on law: SCVseV Scheme - CBDT fixes 100% of disputed tax demand cases as target for officersACC appoints Rohit Yadav, JS, Ministry of Steel, as new JS in PMOTrump praises people of India for upholding democratic values; 1.25 lakh people welcome him at Ahmedabad stadiumCoronaVirus - Death toll soars to about 2600 in China; No of infected cases goes up to 77KGST - An agenda for reforms - Part - 74 -Anti-profiteering - Complaint sans statutory basis
 
Over The Counter Supply - IGST or SGST?

JANUARY 22, 2020

By Vijay Kumar

SECTION 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act reads as:

(a) where the supply involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person, the place of supply of such goods shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient;

Now, suppose a person living in Gurugram goes across to a Delhi shop, buys some goods and returns to Gurugram with the goods, should the shopkeeper charge/pay IGST or SGST and CGST?

Apply the situation to Section 10(1)(a):

1. There is movement of goods by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person. In this case by the recipient - from Delhi to Gurugram.

2. Where did the movement of goods for delivery to the recipient terminate? At the Delhi shop or Gurugram?

The simple GST has such complicated problems.

This is not a hypothetical situation.

An issue was raised by Commissioner of State Tax (Punjab) before the GST Council seeking clarification on the issue related to place of supply in case where Goods are purchased over the counter (on OTC basis) in one State and thereafter transported to another State by the recipient. States like Punjab & Himachal Pradesh have noticed that in case of OTC supply to recipient outside the State, some suppliers are levying CGST and SGST instead of IGST. Further, one of the Tax authorities has issued direction to do the same, that is, in case of OTC supply, the supplier has been directed to charge CGST and SGST instead of IGST even in case of inter-State supply.

The CBIC proposed to issue a clarification as:

It is seen that this situation is squarely covered under the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "IGST Act") which provides that the place of supply of goods, where the supply involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person, shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient.

It has been informed that even though the goods are supplied on OTC basis but the supply involves further movement of goods which is arranged by the recipient, the expression "movement of goods terminates" would mean the place where the movement of goods terminates when the goods reach the place of registration of the recipient or to the address that has been declared in the tax invoice, as the case may be. It is, accordingly, clarified that the place of supply in case of such supplies, i.e. where the recipient is registered or the address declared in the tax invoice (in case such recipient is not registered) in a State other than the State in which the supplier is located, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the IGST Act. Accordingly, such supplies would be treated as inter-state supplies in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 7 of the IGST Act. It is further clarified that the supplier would be liable to pay integrated tax in such cases.

However, where the supply is to an unregistered person and where the recipient's address is not available on record, the place of supply would be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the IGST Act. The place of supply in such cases would be the location of goods at the time of delivery to the recipient. Accordingly, such supplies would be treated as intra-State supplies in accordance with the provisions contained in subsection (1) of section 8 of the IGST Act. It is further clarified that the supplier would be liable to pay Central tax and State tax / Union territory tax in such cases.

This matter including the draft clarification was placed before the GST council in its 37th meeting on 20th September 2019.

It was stated that the draft Circular was in accordance with the views of States like Punjab and Himachal Pradesh i.e. such OTC supplies may be treated as intra-State supplies where the supply was made to an unregistered person and the recipient's address was not available on record and inter-State supplies where the address of recipient is available.

Haryana Government opposed the proposal as they felt that the proposal went beyond Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act and that the proposed Circular would affect the revenue flowing to the State in the form of GST revenue.

Delhi supported the views expressed by Haryana.

Kerala suggested to follow the destination principle and agreed with the views expressed by State of Punjab.

Gujarat stated that it appeared that if any person belonging to one State purchased goods in any other State and got the address of his/her residing State recorded in the invoice then the revenue would flow to the native State and not to the State where bill was actually issued. This would be a big change and it was not clear as to how would one verify the address of the buyer and what would be the mechanism of the revenue flow to the States.

Delhi also felt that the law was being grossly misinterpreted as the destination principle meant where the supply chain terminated and not necessarily the address of the buyer.

The Chairperson/Finance Minister felt that the issue should be looked into afresh by the Law Committee as the destination principle was being questioned and the entire edifice of GST was based on it. She requested the States to give their opinion in writing along with reasons thereof for consideration of the issue afresh in the Law Committee.

So, the issue is officially pending. Till they take a decision, what should the shopkeeper in Delhi charge his customer from Gurugram? IGST or SGST and CGST? Any answer is wrong - till the GST Council decides the issue.

Does the tax payable depend on the address of the buyer? Will it be mandatory to carry an address proof whenever you buy something ‘over the counter'? Will there be a notification prescribing the documents accepted as proof of address. Will the shopkeeper be required to keep a certified copy of the address proof to prove that he paid the correct tax?

Suppose the same person from Gurugram goes to Delhi, has a haircut and returns to Gurugram with his head, what is the tax liability of the barber?

Until next week


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Apropos the above

Dear Sir,

One small suggestion/correction:

In the last para where the POS w.r.t. the barber is discussed....

Said example does not fit in the article as in that case POS would be governed by sec 12 (4) i.e. the location where the services are actually performed and ambiguity is only for supply of 'goods'.

Posted by Archit Tandon
 
Sub: Place of Supply of goods under GST- More than clarification required

In GST, ‘the location of the supplier’ and ‘the place of supply’ together determine whether a supply is intra-state or inter-state. The location of supplier is not as problematic as is the 'place of supply'. However, in case of supply of services elaborate provisions have already been made and in case of last illustration of hair-cut (in the article), the place of supply is Delhi (where the service is actually performed – Section 12(4) of IGST Act). However, major dispute is with regard to the place of supply of goods as the relevant section 10 of the IGST Act is not that elaborate. It is felt that mere clarification by way of circular without changing the provisions of Section 10 of the IGST Act may not work in case of goods as discussed below:
2. Section 7 of CGST Act provides the scope of supply and it includes “sale” which is the most common form of supply of goods. The word “sale” is not defined under GST, however, Section (3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 stipulates that “Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale”. So now question arises as to when the “property in goods is transferred?”
3. The proposed circular, referred to in the article, says: the expression "movement of goods terminates" would mean the place where the movement of goods terminates when the goods reach the place of registration of the recipient or to the address that has been declared in the tax invoice as the case may be. The cases where “the supply involves movement of goods” are covered under Section 10(1)(a) – the place of supply of such goods shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient. However, he cases where “the supply does not involve movement of goods” are covered under Section 10(1)(c) – the place of supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of the delivery to the recipient. Now consider the following situations:

(1) Suppose a person from Mohali (Punjab) purchases an AUDI car at Chandigarh. The Showroom hands over the keys of the car to the owner and he drives away. Has he received the car or he will receive it when he drives that car to Mohali? A speeding truck coming from hind side crashes into AUDI just a kilometer from the showroom (in Chandigarh), with God's grace the driver is saved unhurt but car is total damage. Now whether the showroom who sold the car is in picture as supply was to be completed at Mohali only? NO. Matter is between the insurance company and the owner of the car who was to receive(?) the car at Mohali as explained in the proposed circular cited in the article. It is felt that such supply, though of a car, is covered under Section 10(1)(c) as no movement was involved for delivery to the recipient thus supply did not involve movement as the sale had already occurred in the show-room where the property in the car had been transferred to the buyer. So the tax leviable was CGST +UTGST + Comp. Cess and not IGST+ Comp. Cess.
(2) A Trader from Chandigarh purchases goods for his business over the counter at Delhi, the supplier charges SGST+CGST, as the delivery to the recipient on the spot. How will such recipient claim ITC? He cannot claim ITC of the above taxes in Chandigarh. As he can avail ITC of Integrated Goods & Services Tax only in case of supply from another state.Should there be two categories of buyers – registered and unregistered?
(3) A person coming from Panchkula Haryana) to Mohali (Punjab) via Chandigarh purchases some eatables at Panchkula (Haryana) he gives his address of Mohali, the supplier charges IGST (as suggested) but the persons stops for some work at Chandigarh which takes some time and he consumes the eatables at Chandigarh. Should there some exceptions to general rule such as eatables or consumable goods?
4. In view of the above, the Phrase "involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or any other person" needs to be explained. Moreover, the law has to be made very clear without any ambiguity. Therefore, mere issue of clarification may not serve the purpose until-unless legal provisions regarding place of supply of goods as provided under Section 10 of the IGST Act are suitably amended so as to leave least scope for ambiguity.
Baljit Singh Khara
(The view expressed here are strictly personal)


Posted by NACIN NACIN