9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 444 - AAAR - GSTLevy of GST - reimbursement amount - Applicant is acting as a pure agent of the industry partner to the extent of reimbursement received towards stipend paid to Trainees on behalf of industry partner as part of training agreement - Applicant is acting as a pure agent of the industry partner to the extent of reimbursement received against cost of medical and accident insurance obtained for the benefit of Trainees by the Applicant and reimbursed by the industry partner as per the training agreement - HELD THAT - A reading of Rule 33 gives the understanding that a pure agent is one who, while making a supply to the recipient, also receives and incurs expenditure on some other supply on behalf of the recipient and claims reimbursement, at actuals, for such supplies from the recipient of the main supply. In other words, under the pure agent concept, the expenditure which is incurred by the supplier of service for procuring supplies from a third party for the recipient, in addition to his own supplies, is excluded from his value of supply since such expenditure is one which is compulsorily levied on the recipient of service, but has been paid by the supplier of service to the third party on behalf of the recipient and is claimed as a reimbursement from the recipient at actuals. The Appellant's case does not fit into the above understanding of pure agent. In this case, the Appellant is providing the service of deploying trainees to the Company as per the NEEM Regulations. However, it is the Appellant who is obligated under the NEEM Regulations to pay the stipend to the trainees. Regulation 15 of the NEEM Regulations as well as the terms of the contract entered into with the NEEM Trainee stipulate that it is the Appellant who will pay the stipend to the trainee. Since the trainee has registered with the Appellant as NEEM Facilitator, it is the responsibility of the Appellant to deploy the trainee in a suitable industry to undergo training at the industry for a specific period and pay the stipend during the training period. Merely because the Appellant is getting the stipend amount reimbursed from the Company, will not make the Appellant a pure agent of the Company. The activity of deploying trainees to the Company to undergo training is undertaken by the Appellant in his own interest as a NEEM Facilitator. While the NEEM Regulations make provisions for the NEEM Facilitator to partner with Companies/Industries to provide the training, it makes the Facilitator responsible for payment of stipend and for issue of the training completion certificate. The Regulations do not cast any responsibility on the Company or the Industry who is providing the practical training. It is the responsibility of the Facilitator to furnish data of the trainees to AICTE - No doubt the terms of the agreement with the Company specify that the stipend amount paid to the Appellant is to be utilized only for the purpose of paying the trainees, but this does not make the Appellant a pure agent of the Company since the NEEM Regulations does not require the Company/Industry to pay a stipend to the trainees. The task of providing adequate training to the enrolled trainees and payment of stipend to the trainees is an obligation on the part of the Appellant and as part of this responsibility and in their own interest they have deployed trainees to the premises of the Company. Since the deployment of trainees to the Company and ensuring that the trainees complete the training is an activity undertaken by the Appellant in his own interest as a NEEM Facilitator, the Appellant fails to satisfy the definition of 'pure agent' as given in Rule 33 of the CGST Rules. Merely because the agreement with the Company states that the stipend amount will be utilized for payment to the trainees and the invoice shows the stipend amount separately, it does not mean that the Appellant is a pure agent and is absolved of his liability - the Appellant fails to qualify as a pure agent with regard to the payment of stipend to the trainees which is reimbursed by the Company. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant qualifies as a "pure agent" for the reimbursement received towards stipend paid to trainees. 2. Whether the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance obtained for trainees is chargeable to GST. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Qualification as a "Pure Agent" for Stipend Reimbursement Facts of the Case: - The appellant, an approved NEEM (National Employability Enhancement Mission) Facilitator, provides on-the-job training to enhance employability. - The appellant executes agreements with trainees and industry partners, receiving reimbursement for stipends paid to trainees and charging an administrative fee. Appellant's Arguments: - Under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, expenditures incurred on behalf of the recipient should be excluded from the value of supply if conditions are met. - The appellant claims compliance with Rule 33, arguing that the agreement with the industry partner authorizes them to act as a pure agent. - The appellant contends that the timing of stipend receipt and disbursement does not affect their status as a pure agent. AAR's Decision: - The AAR ruled that the appellant does not qualify as a pure agent for the stipend reimbursement, making it chargeable to GST. - The AAR added a restriction that the expenditure must be incurred first and only claimed later to qualify as a pure agent. Appellant's Appeal: - The appellant argues that the AAR misconstrued Rule 33 and added an unwarranted restriction. - The appellant cites previous rulings where similar reimbursements were not chargeable to GST. Discussion and Findings: - The appellate authority examined the NEEM Regulations, which mandate the appellant to pay stipends to trainees. - The appellant's role involves deploying trainees, paying stipends, and issuing training completion certificates, making them responsible under NEEM Regulations. - The agreement with the industry partner does not indicate authorization for the appellant to act as a pure agent for stipend payments. - The appellate authority concluded that the appellant does not meet the first and third conditions of Rule 33, as the stipend payment is an obligation of the appellant, not the industry partner. - The appellate authority found that the appellant's activities are undertaken in their own interest as a NEEM Facilitator, not as a pure agent of the industry partner. Conclusion: - The appellate authority upheld the AAR's decision, stating that the appellant does not qualify as a pure agent for stipend reimbursement, making it chargeable to GST. Issue 2: Reimbursement for Medical and Accident Insurance Facts of the Case: - The appellant also sought a ruling on whether the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance obtained for trainees is chargeable to GST. AAR's Decision: - The AAR ruled that the appellant does not qualify as a pure agent for the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance, making it chargeable to GST. Appellant's Appeal: - The appellant did not specifically address this issue in their appeal. Discussion and Findings: - The appellate authority did not provide a separate analysis for this issue, as the appellant's primary focus was on the stipend reimbursement. Conclusion: - The appellate authority upheld the AAR's decision, stating that the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance is chargeable to GST. Order: - The appellate authority upheld the order No. KAR ADRG 07/2022 dated 8th March 2022 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority. - The appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed on all accounts.
|
