2021 (12) TMI 415 - AAR - GST

Liability to pay GST under Normal or under Reverse Charge Mechanism - Import of Services which are not rendered in India - Intermediary services - HELD THAT - From the submissions made by the applicant it is not very clear as to ; what is the service rendered and who is the recipient of service. The applicant has just made a statement that the recipient of service is located outside India and that they are not the recipient of service. No supporting evidences/submissions have been made by the applicant in this regard. The applicant has just made a statement that they are not an intermediary, How they are not an Intermediary has not been brought out clearly, in their submissions, with evidences and records. In fact the subject application is very ambiguous and cryptic and no evidences are forthcoming supporting the claim of the applicant that, the services are not imported by them and the applicant is not an intermediary - the applicant was asked during the Final Hearing held on 28.09.2021 to explain the facts/transactions with evidence and detailed submissions in support of their contention that the impugned services are not imported by them and the applicant is not an intermediary but till the date of passing this order, they have not responded at all. The Applicant's questions are thus not answered.

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of liability to pay GST under Normal or Reverse Charge Mechanism on Import of Services not rendered in India.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Contention - As per the Applicant:
- The applicant, a film company, sought an advance ruling on whether GST applies to services imported from a foreign entity for provision to foreign clients outside India by foreign professionals. They argued that as the services are not rendered in India and the recipient is outside India, GST on import of services does not apply. They also contended that they do not fall under the definition of an Intermediary as the supply is on their own account.

2. Contention - As per the Concerned Officer:
- The concerned officer did not submit any contentions in the matter.

3. Observations and Findings:
- The Authority reviewed the submissions and found the applicant's claims ambiguous and lacking in detail. The applicant did not clarify the type of services imported, the process of supply, or provide evidence supporting their arguments. The Authority noted that the lack of clarity made it difficult to determine the taxability of the services under GST.
- The Authority highlighted that Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 determines the place of supply of services for tax purposes when the supplier or recipient is outside India. However, the applicant's submissions did not clearly identify the service rendered or the recipient, making it challenging to assess tax liability.
- Despite requesting the applicant to provide detailed submissions and evidence during the final hearing, no response was received. Due to the insufficient evidentiary material, the Authority could not reach a conclusion and decided not to pass any order in the case.

4. Order:
- The Authority concluded that the applicant's questions could not be answered due to the lack of substantiating evidence and clarity in their submissions. Consequently, no order was passed in the case.

This judgment underscores the importance of providing detailed and clear information, supported by evidence, in advance ruling applications to enable a thorough assessment of tax liability under GST laws. The lack of clarity and evidentiary support hindered the Authority's ability to make a determination, emphasizing the need for comprehensive and precise submissions in such cases.