9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 975 - AAR - GSTPermission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling Application - Classification of supply - supply of services or not - supply of repairing and replacement service - principal supply or composite supply - requirement of registration u/s 22 and section 25 of CGST Act 2017 for the use of warehouses of ASP (the sub-contractor) - HELD THAT - The applicant did not furnish the documents undertook to be submitted. However the applicant was extended an opportunity to be heard finally on 21-05-2019. The authorised representatives of the applicant appeared and submitted a written letter requesting withdrawal of the application for Advance Ruling before the authority since the company has opted to drop the proposed business model. The application filed by the applicant for Advance Ruling is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Authority for Advance Ruling, Tamil Nadu, considered an application by M/s. Foxteq Services India Private Limited regarding the classification of their repair and replacement services of computer monitors and monitor parts under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act. The key issues presented and analyzed in the judgment are as follows:**Issues Presented and Considered:**1. Whether the supply of repairing and replacement services should be classified as a composite supply.2. Whether the said supply, if classified as a composite supply, would be considered a supply of services under GST.3. Whether registration is required under the CGST Act, 2017 for the use of warehouses of the sub-contractor.**Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:****Issue 1: Classification as Composite Supply**- The applicant sought clarification on whether their repair and replacement services constitute a composite supply.- The applicant outlined a proposed business model involving sub-contracting repair services to an Authorized Service Provider (ASP).- The ASP would provide repair services on behalf of the applicant to the client's customers.- The applicant would determine whether a repair involves replacing a defective part or the whole unit.- The ASP would carry out repairs based on the applicant's decision.- The applicant would receive monitor units and parts from the Original Design Manufacturer (ODM) and ship them to ASP warehouses.- The ASP would charge the applicant for sub-contracting services, including warehousing and logistics.- The applicant's service charges were based on warranty coverage for monitor parts.- The applicant provided a detailed billing model for different repair scenarios.**Issue 2: Classification as Supply of Services**- The applicant requested clarification on whether their repair and replacement services would be considered a supply of services under GST.- The applicant provided details of agreements with HP and Foxconn, as well as billing arrangements.- The applicant did not submit all requested documents but later requested withdrawal of the application.**Issue 3: Registration Requirement**- The applicant inquired about the registration requirement under the CGST Act, 2017 for using ASP warehouses.- The applicant did not provide all requested documents and later withdrew the application.**Significant Holdings:**- The Authority dismissed the application as withdrawn, as the applicant opted to drop the proposed business model.- The ruling clarified that the repair and replacement services provided by the applicant would not be further classified due to the withdrawal of the application.In conclusion, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Tamil Nadu, analyzed the classification of repair and replacement services as a composite supply and the requirement for registration under the CGST Act, 2017. The ruling was dismissed as withdrawn by the applicant before a final determination could be made.
|
