News Update

ST - Amendment made to FA, 1994 on 14.05.2015 making service tax applicable retrospectively on chit-fund business is only prospective - Refund payable of tax paid between 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015: HCST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Amnesty Scheme, being of the nature of an exemption from the requirement to pay the actual tax due to the government, have to be considered strictly in favour of the revenue: HCCX - Issue involved is valuation of goods u/r 10A of CE Valuation Rules, 2000 - Appeal lies before Supreme Court: HCCus - Smuggling - A person carrying any article on his belonging would be presumed to be aware of the contents of the articles being carried by him: HCCus - Penalty that could be imposed for smuggling 3.2 kg of gold was Rs.88.40 lakhs, being the value of gold, but what is imposed is Rs.10 lakhs - Penalty not at all disproportionate: HCCus - Keeping in mind the balance of convenience and irreparable injury which may be caused to Revenue, importer to continue indemnity bond of 115 crore and possession of confiscated diamonds to remain with department: HCCus - OIA was passed in October 2022 remanding the matter to adjudicating authority but matter not yet disposed of - Six weeks' time granted to dispose proceedings: HCI-T - High Court need not intervene in matter involving factual issues; petitioner may utilise option of appeal: HCChina asks Blinken to select between cooperation or confrontationI-T - Unexplained cash credit - additions u/s 68 unsustainable where based on conjecture & surmise alone: ITATHonda to set up USD 11 bn EV plant in CanadaI-T - Re-assessment is invalid where based only on a suspicion that income escaped assessment & where not based on concrete reasons to believe for commencing such proceedings : ITATImran Khan banned from flaying State InstitutionsI-T - Income from sale of flats cannot be computed in assessee's hands, where legal possession of flats had not been handed over to buyers in that particular AY: ITATPro-Palestine demonstration spreads across US universities; 100 arrestedI-T - Investment activities in venture capital which are not covered in negative list under Schedule III to SEBI Regulations, qualifies for deduction u/s 10(23FB): ITATNATO asks China to stop backing Russia if keen to forge close ties with WestCus - When Department has not complied with time limit, the order issued for revocation of licence or order issued for continuation of suspension licence cannot sustain: CESTATNY top court quashes conviction of Harvey Weinstein in rape caseWeather prediction normal for phase 2 poll dayIndiGo orders 30 Airbus A350s for long haulsST - Appellant is an 'authorised medical practitioner' providing 'healthcare services' - services exempted in terms of clause 2(i) of notification 25/2012-ST: Commr(A)RBI to issue fresh guidelines for banks to freeze suspected bank accounts being used for cyber crimesREC avails SACE-Covered Green Loan for 60.5 Billion Japanese YenStudy finds Coca-Cola accounts for 11% of branded plastic pollution worldwideCus - 'Small Form-factor Pluggable Optical Transceivers' are classifiable under CTH 8517 7090 and not under CTH 8517 62 90 - entitled for benefit of duty concession under 57/2017-Cus: CESTATDoNER discusses Development of Tourism in North EastCX - Appellant is eligible for exemption under Notfn 12/2012-CE upon fulfilling all conditions stipulated therein, thus sufficiently establishing that goods dealt with by Appellants qualify for exemption: CESTAT
 
Job Work - Redefined

DECEMBER 01, 2020

By K Srinivasan

SECTION 143(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 [Chapter XXI - Miscellaneous - Job Work Procedure] reads -

(3) Where the inputs sent for job work are not received back by the principal after completion of job work or otherwise in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or are not supplied from the place of business of the job worker in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) within a period of one year of their being sent out, it shall be deemed that such inputs had been supplied by the principal to the job worker on the day when the said inputs were sent out.

Section 19(3) [Chapter V - Input Tax Credit - Taking input tax credit in respect of inputs and capital goods sent for job work. ] resound the concept envisaged above as follows -

(3) Where the inputs sent for job work are not received back by the principal after completion of job work or otherwise or are not supplied from the place of business of the job worker in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 143 within one year of being sent out, it shall be deemed that such inputs had been supplied by the principal to the job worker on the day when the said inputs were sent out:

Provided that where the inputs are sent directly to a job worker, the period of one year shall be counted from the date of receipt of inputs by the job worker.

Thus, the statute by a deeming provision treats the non-receipt of goods within the specified time limit as if the goods have been supplied on the day when they were sent out by the principal to the job worker for job work.

There is an argument that Section 143 not being the charging section it can't provide for levy of tax without the same being covered within the scope of supply by virtue of Section 7.

Any transaction can't be levied to tax if first not attracted by the scope of "supply" and by a mere deeming provision as has been provided in section 35(6), levy can't be activated is the argument.

However, Section 143 implies that if the principal does not opt for the option provided under this section then, he would have to send the goods against payment of tax as applicable to any form of supply duly covered within the scope of Sec 7.

There would be no need to apply any deeming fiction to the above situation, to term it as a taxable supply for the goods would have been actually supplied to the job worker even at the first instance.

No deeming fiction would appear especially necessary in the section, for the principal not opting for sending goods without payment of tax, for payment of tax is automatically attracted like in any regular supply of goods by any person to any other person for the said Job work transaction without Sec 143 option exercised. It automatically falls within the scope of supply under section 7 on its own. The deeming fiction would be required only when the goods are not received within the prescribed time limit.

Transportation of goods for job work is not to be mistaken as categorized differently from the transportation of goods for reasons other than by way of supply under Rule 55(Rule 55(a)/(b) refers) on a wrong presumption that it has a connection with Section 143, treating job work differently as not a supply from other movement of goods which are treated as supply.

The legislative intent of treating the movement from principal to job worker different from the movement otherwise than for supply under Rule 55, is to show distinctly the movement of goods for other purposes which are covered under Bill of materials instead of a Tax Invoice and the like from job work and nothing more to it.

Once the goods either moves without exercise of option Under 143 on payment of tax or comes back beyond one year after job work, is tantamount to supply by default within the meaning and scope of supply under Sec 7 and what is kept on hold is fast forwarded to the date of actual removal of inputs from the Principal to the Job worker.

It follows strictly from the above that no one can challenge that sending goods for job work by principal to job worker is not essentially a supply and, therefore, no tax can be demanded on not opting for procedure laid down in Section 143.

It is needless for the section to provide for sending of goods without following the procedure laid down under Sec 143, would be deemed as a supply.

On the one hand, it is necessary to provide for deeming provision as provided under 143(3)/19(3) ibid, that if the goods are not received back within the specified time period one year, it will be treated as a deemed supply.

While, on the other hand it is necessary to provide for a machinery provision through Sec 35(6) of the Act as tax needs to be demanded under Sec 73/74 as in any other case for recovering tax not paid, despite the option exercised but time not complied with as per Law.

The sending of goods to job worker though essentially is not a supply then, section 143 prescribes optional procedure for ratification of sending the goods for job work without payment tax.

And if such optional procedure has not been followed, it will be then the sole criterion for holding the principal liable to payment of tax for an activity which in itself falls within the purview of supply.

Circular No. 38/12/2018 Dated 26th  March 2018 by CBIC was in fact issued, only to set at rest various doubts raised by the stake holders if one can send goods for job work without exercising the option under Sec 143, on payment of tax, as a perfect possibility of normal supply under Sec 7.

The Government did add a proviso to Para 5 of Schedule I [Provided that the supply of goods by a registered taxable person to a job-worker in terms of section 43A shall not be treated as supply of goods.] and an Explanation 2 to Para 1 of Schedule III [Explanation 2.- The supply of goods, after completion of job-work, by a registered job- worker shall be treated as the supply of goods by the "principal" referred to in section 43A, and the value of such goods shall not be included in the aggregate turnover of the registered job worker. ] in the Model Law read with Sec 43A.

But, it was getting too cumbersome.

As nothing great was thought either lost or gained by the said additions in Schedule I/III, it was felt unnecessary to do so. Suffice to go with the present scheme of Sections 143/19/35/7 in that order, was the decision of the Government.

Hope there are no further doubts, as in the collective wisdom of the draftsman and Law Ministry, all forms of movement by default are supplies under Sec 7.

So, any movement not relaxed by S.143 will stand included automatically under the generic description of supply as well laid out under Sec 7 of the Act.

[The Author is a former Assistant Commissioner of GST, Chennai and a CBIC Master Trainer, GST and currently a Senior Associate, Indirect & Corporate Taxes, at a Chennai-based Law Firm, RANK Associates. The views of the Author are purely 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)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.