TMI Short Notes | ||
Finance Bill, 2024 Insights: The Expansion of Input Service Distributor's (ISD) Role in GST |
||
Section 9 - Levy and collection. CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 The modifications in the definition of "Input Service Distributor" (ISD) between the existing version under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and the proposed amendments in the Finance Bill, 2024, reflect nuanced yet significant shifts in the GST framework's operational aspects. Here is a comparative analysis and commentary on the changes: Existing Definition (Section 2(61) of CGST Act, 2017)The existing definition focuses on an office of the supplier of goods or services (or both) that:
New Definition (Proposed in Finance Bill, 2024)The proposed definition broadens the scope of what constitutes an "Input Service Distributor" by:
Key Changes and Implications
CommentaryThe proposed changes to the definition of "Input Service Distributor" seem to be aimed at increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the ITC distribution mechanism within the GST framework. By encompassing RCM services and explicitly allowing for the distribution of ITC on behalf of distinct persons, the amendment is poised to reduce administrative burdens and enhance credit flow within business groups. Overall, these amendments reflect a move towards a more integrated and business-friendly tax administration, aiming to alleviate some of the complexities faced by businesses in managing GST credits. As these changes are proposed to be implemented, stakeholders should closely examine the accompanying rules and procedural guidelines for a comprehensive understanding of their impact on existing tax practices. The amendment shall come into effect from date to notified after enactment of Finance Bill, 2024. Budget 2024Existing definition of “Input Service Distributor” as per Section 2(61) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (61) “Input Service Distributor” means an office of the supplier of goods or services or both which receives tax invoices issued under section 31 towards the receipt of input services and issues a prescribed document for the purposes of distributing the credit of central tax, State tax, integrated tax or Union territory tax paid on the said services to a supplier of taxable goods or services or both having the same Permanent Account Number as that of the said office; New definition of “Input Service Distributor” as proposed in the Finance Bill, 2024 ‘(61) “Input Service Distributor” means an office of the supplier of goods or services or both which receives tax invoices towards the receipt of input services, including invoices in respect of services liable to tax under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 9, for or on behalf of distinct persons referred to in section 25, and liable to distribute the input tax credit in respect of such invoices in the manner provided in section 20;
Full Text: Section 9 - Levy and collection.
Dated: 1-2-2024
Suggestions / Comments
To my mind, with this proposal, it has now become mandatory to seek ISD registration and distribute ITC to distinct persons, which earlier including during ST regime, was only optional. Cross charge and ISD were almost mutually exclusive, and either option was ok. With the proposed changes, cross charge will still survive and continue if HO uses any goods for common purpose, which benefit all distinct entities as well. Also, for any common service such as CA/Banking etc. availed at HO, it is still debatable whether ISD route can be adopted now since ISD as per amended definition (proposed) now only covers ISD distribution for an office which receives invoices (FCM+RCM) "for and on behalf of distinct persons" and who is "liable to distribute" ITC "in respect of such invoices" as per Section 20. Section 20 on the other hand, now (as proposed) states that an office which receives invoices (FCM+RCM) "for and on behalf of distinct persons shall be required to be registered as Input Service Distributor under clause (viii) of section 24 and shall distribute the input tax credit in respect of such invoices." So one has to first show that the inward supply of service at HO was "for an on behalf of distinct person" and only that ITC is mandatorily required to be distributed. This can include insurance premium for specific distinct person in other state/ stock audit for specific distinct person etc. I doubt general common admin related input service can be covered under ISD, since the language adopted appears to have created an artificial distinction now. Completely common inward service supply will have to be cross charged, instead of being distributed under ISD. Absurd compulsion but that is how the language appears to be!!!
|
||