Discussions Forum | ||||||||||
Home Forum Goods and Services Tax - GST This
A Public Forum.
Submit new Issue / Query
My Issues
My Replies
|
||||||||||
AMORTISATION REQUIREMENT UNDER GST, Goods and Services Tax - GST |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
AMORTISATION REQUIREMENT UNDER GST |
||||||||||
X(USA) has signed contract with Y(India) for production of goods & export to X.Mould was to be provided by X as per contract. X has given advance of ₹ 50 L to Y for purchase of mould in India & to be retained by Y for production. Y purchased mould from Z(India) & availed GST input on this. Should Y raise export invoice of mould to X(though physically to be retained by Y)? or Y shall add amortised cost of mould in export invoices of goods to X? is input eligible on purchase of mould by Y from z. Posts / Replies Showing Replies 1 to 5 of 5 Records Page: 1
Sir , It depends on the invoice raised by Z whether the invoice is raise in the name of Y or in the name of X but to be delivered to Y. If supply of mould by Z is to Y then Y can avail the credit and on exporting the mould to X on completion of production and supply programme he can claim the refund of ITC of gst paid on the mould. Under GST law amortization of mould cost is not comtyemplated.
Pl. check point no. 1 of th Circular No. 47/21/2018-GST dtd. 08th June in matter.
Sir, in the said notification, i could not make any difference between 1.2 & 1.3. can anyone explain to me with nice examples? thanks & regards J Ramamurthy
The most confusing circular is the circular dated 8th June 2018 regarding moulds and dies. It has raised more doubts rather than clarity.
1.1 - situation where the tools are moved from the OEM to the component manufacturer. Not a supply. No tax payable. No reversal of credit. 1.2 Further clarifies point 1.1 that in such case no need to add the amortised value to the component. 1.3 situation (bill to ship to) - retained by the component manufacturer - no movement of tool from OEM to component manufacturer - Credit to be reversed. Amortised cost to be included in the value. Had the clarification at point 1.2 be after 1.3, then the issue would have been clear. But that was not the intention. Regards S.Ramaswamy Page: 1 Old Query - New Comments are closed. |
||||||||||