9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1005 - AAAR - GSTPlace of supply - sourcing (on a worldwide basis)) of goods from India - export or not - Challenge to Advance ruling decision - Non-speaking order - It is pleaded that the Ld. AAR has not applied mind while passing the impugned order and the order is non-speaking. Held that - It is observed that the appellant is side tracking the facts by submitting that the appellant is not an agent or broker, as no such question was asked before the AAR - The Id. AAR has answered all the Questions raised, in term of relevant provisions of the GST Act and by giving detailed reasons. The plea of the appellant, that the AAR has given SAC description alongwith tax rate which was not asked for, does not hold water because AAR has clarified each and every aspect raised in the application for Advance Ruling by giving self-explanatory findings. Thus the arguments raised by the appellant are untenable. The appellant has himself admitted that he has been providing services to the Esprit Germany in terms of the contract between Esprit Germany and Esprit Hong Kong and for that purpose an agreement was made between Esprit Hong Kong and Esprit India (appellant). The appellant is providing the services of market research and assisting in trade mark protection, identification of supplies and inspection and quality control of the goods/services. Therefore, we find that the AAR has rightly identified the SAC description with rate of tax - After perusing the provisions of Section 97(2) and going through the findings of AAR, we are of the view that Question 2 and 3, raised by the applicant, have rightly been declined by the AAR. There is no hesitation in dismissing the appeal - the Advance ruling decision does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of services provided by Esprit India to its associate concern in Hong Kong under GST regime. 2. Whether the services provided by Esprit India are covered under Export of Services with Zero rated taxability. 3. Eligibility of Esprit India for seeking refund of GST for the taxes paid on input services or goods or both. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Taxability of Services The appellant, Esprit India Pvt. Ltd., is engaged by Esprit De Corp (Far East) Limited, Hong Kong (EDCFE) to provide sourcing services for Esprit Germany. The appellant argued that the services provided are composite and should not be vivisected into different categories. However, the Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) identified the SAC description and tax rate for the services provided, which the appellant contested was not asked for. The AAR concluded that the services provided by the appellant fall under specific SAC descriptions and are taxable under the GST regime. Issue 2: Export of Services The appellant claimed that the services provided qualify as 'exports' under Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), and should be treated as zero-rated supply. The AAR, however, declined to categorize the services as exports, stating that the questions asked by the appellant were out of the scope of Section 97(2) of the CGST/HGST Act. The appellant's argument that the services are support services and thus qualify as exports was not accepted by the AAR. Issue 3: Refund of GST The appellant sought clarity on whether they are eligible for a refund of GST paid on input services or goods. The AAR refused to address this question, stating it does not fall within the ambit of Section 97(2) of the CGST/HGST Act. The appellant's plea for refund eligibility was thus dismissed by the AAR. Conclusion: The Appellate Authority upheld the Advance Ruling dated 11.04.2018, concluding that the AAR's decision does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The AAR's detailed and self-speaking order was deemed to have correctly answered all the questions raised by the appellant within the scope of Section 97(2) of the CGST/HGST Act. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the taxability of the services under the GST regime, rejecting the classification of services as exports, and denying the eligibility for a refund of GST paid on inputs.
|
