GST Rate for Job Work, Goods and Services Tax - GST

[Kaustubh Karandikar]

XYZ doing the PCB Assembly job work where the PQR is sending XYZ the raw material (Electronic components, bare PCB and all) in kit format. XYZ are doing assembly and soldering and sending it back to PQR. Both XYZ and PQR are registered with GST. What is the GST Rate that XYZ should charge to PQR for this job work?

Posts / Replies

[SOWMYA CA]

2(68) “job work” means any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person and the expression “job worker” shall be construed accordingly; Here XYZ is the JOB WORKER and PQR is the principal sending the raw material to XYZ for job work purposes.

The HSN to be used is 9988 and the applicable gst rate would be 12% for job work services and 18% if it is manufacturing services to the principal. The exact nature of the work needs to be examined to arrive at the proper classification and gst rate

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

Sir, please see entry 26 of Notification no.11/2017-CTR dated 28.06.2017, where concessional rate is given for goods covered under some HSN.

[KASTURI SETHI]

I agree with both experts. Assembling amounts to manufacture. Covered under concessional rate of tax @12% under Heading No.9988.

[KASTURI SETHI]

The undermentioned case law fits into the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2 (72) of CGST Act

NARNE TULAMAN MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C.E. - 1988 (9) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT

[SOWMYA CA]

Kasthuri sir,

Entry (id): Services by way of job work other than (i), (ia), (ib), (ic) and (ica)] above enjoys concessional rate of 12%.

However Entry iv: Manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others, other than (i), (ia), (ib), (ic), (ica), (id), (ii), (iia) and (iii)] above the rate would be 18%.

You are saying manufacturing services on physical inputs eligible for 12%. Can you clarify

[KASTURI SETHI]

Madam,

You have not understood my reply. I have written in your support. I am not talking of manufacturing service (18%) . I am talking of manufacturing process which changes the character of the goods and a new product is emerged as per definition of 'manufacture' in CGST Act. There is no dispute about applicability of rate tax @ 12 %.

For more clarity read my article on non-manufacturing services published in TMI a few days ago. In this article, I have pointed out difference between manufacturing and non-manufacturing processes/services.

[SOWMYA CA]

Now I get your point sir.. Manufacturing service is different from Manufacture arising out of job work.. I will surely read your article on non-manufacturing services.Thank you sir....

[Amit Agrawal]

As per facts of the query, both the parties involved (i.e. job-worker & the principal) are registered under GST.

Applicable GST rate for such job-work is 12%. And the question of whether 'process of job-work undertaken amounts to manufacturer or not' is totally irrelevant, in my view, for determination of tax-rate in given situation.

[Amit Agrawal]

While I understand reasons of difference of opinion & nature of controversy involved (specially after going through very informative article of Shri Kasturi Sethi Ji), I still hold the different view as can be seen from my earlier post.

Please note that views shared by me in my earlier post are strictly personal and I fully respect contrary views expressed by other author/s.

[Amit Agrawal]

Now, as mark of respect for fellow panelist as well as querist, kindly allow me to explain reasoning behind my views:

A. The definition of job-work under GST does not distinguish between 'activities amounting to manufacture' and 'activities not amounting to manufacturer'. In other works, job-work under GST includes 'activities amounting to manufacture' as well in our view . However, definition of job-work specifies that job-work must be carried on "goods belonging to another registered person".

A1. Summary of above: 'Whether activity amounts to manufacture or not' is irrelevant point as far as determining whether 'any treatment or process undertaken by a person' is job-work or not under GST. Relevant point to determine is that treatment or process must be carried by one person on "goods belonging to another registered person".

B. However, the definition of 'manufacture' under GST clearly wants 'emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use' and here, question of 'whether same is carried on person's owned goods OR on goods belonging to unregistered person OR on goods belonging to registered person' does not matter at all.

C. All entries under 'Serial Number 26 of Notification 11/2017 CGST dtd. 28.06.2017' have corresponding 'Chapter, Section or Heading' mentioned as 'Heading 9988 [Manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others]'.

C1. Moreover, serial number 26(iv) (i.e. manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others) has specifically excluded entries (i),(ia),(ib) (ic),(id),(ii),(iia) & (iii) of Serial no. 26.

C2. This clearly means, in my humble opinion, that the distinction sought, between job-work and manufacturing services (to come to conclusion that job-workers needs to charge gst @ 18% or 12%, depending upon whether process amounts to manufacturer or not), does not exist.

D. Description of HSN 9988 (i.e. Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others) is as under:

"The services included under Heading 9988 are performed on physical inputs owned by units other than the units providing the service. As such, they are characterized as outsourced portions of a manufacturing process or a complete outsourced manufacturing process. Since this Heading covers manufacturing services, the output is not owned by the unit providing this service. Therefore, the value of the services in this Heading is based on the service fee paid, not the value of the goods manufactured."

D1. As can be seen from above, 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others' need NOT be 'complete outsourced manufacturing process' and it can also be 'outsourced portions of a manufacturing process'.

D2. In other words, every process (which are carried by a job-worker) need not result into 'manufacture' so as to fall under 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others' under HSN 9988.

Summarizing above, I hold following views:

As per facts of the query, both the parties involved (i.e. job-worker & the principal) are registered under GST. Applicable GST rate for such job-work is 12%. And the question of whether 'process of job-work undertaken amounts to manufacture or not' is totally irrelevant, in my view, for determination of tax-rate in given situation.

As the risk of repetition, please note that these are my personal views and same should not be taken as professional advice. And I fully respect contrary views expressed by other author/s.

[Amit Agrawal]

If I understood correctly, we now got three different opinions in given facts:

By Ms. Sowmya CA Ji: If process/es carried by the job-worker amounts to manufacture, GST @ 18% and if not, GST @ 12%.

By Shri Kasturi Sethi Ji: If process/es carried by the job-worker amounts to manufacture, GST @ 12% and if not, GST @ 18%.

And my views, GST @ 12%, irrespective of whether process/es carried by the job-worker amounts to manufacture or not.

In my earlier post, I tried to explain my reasoning for disagreement with both views.

This is beauty of this forum. It gives new grounds and at-together different thought-process/es which, I am sure, all professionals enjoy and found useful.

[SOWMYA CA]

Amit ji .. My point as per the definition of Job work per 2 (68) means any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person and the expression “job worker” shall be construed accordingly; Every treatment or process does not necessarily result in manufacture. However manufacture involves treatment or process on inputs. If the treatment or process brings into existence a new product then it attracts entry 26(iv) is attracted and the rate to be charged is 18%. However if it is a mere treatment or process undertaken on behalf of principal without bringing into existence any new product, the concessional rate of 12% can be taken

[Kaustubh Karandikar]

Thanks for the advice on my query by all the experts. My personal view is, based on the CBIC's Circular No. 126/45/2019-GST dt.22.11.2019, GST Rate for the transaction stated by me in my query will be 12%. Views of the experts please.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.vAmit Agrawal Ji,

Sir, I have perused all views here word for word. I agree with most of your views except one. There is no definition of 'manufacturing service'. The terms, 'manufacture' and 'manufacturing services' are different. Do you agree that non-manufacturing process/activity exists ? If it is so, where it is to be classified ? Can it be classified under Heading 9988 which is specifically meant for manufacturing activity ?

Non-manufacturing service/activity/process is not in the picture in the query but the question arises how can it be fitted in the Heading No.9988 ? Will it not be a square peg in a round whole ?

Will you oblige me by throwing more light on the issues involved ?

Thanks & regards.

[Amit Agrawal]

Dear Kaustubh Karandikar Ji,

I and Shri Kasturi Sethi Ji both agree with you that in the fact/s of your query, GST @ 12% is applicable. This is due to the fact subject process carried by the job-worker - as stated in your query - amounts to manufacture.

My views for above is not based on CBIC's Circular No. 126/45/2019-GST dt.22.11.2019, though said circular really give it additional support.

Our debate / difference of opinion is only when subject process carried by the job-worker does not amount to manufacture. As desired by him, I will try to elaborate my views on this point of contention in next post.

[Amit Agrawal]

Dear Kasturi Sethi Ji,

As desired, please let me elaborate my line of thinking on our point of difference/s:

A. The definition of ‘manufacture’ as per Section 2(72) of CGST Act which is as follows :-

“manufacture” means processing of raw material or inputs in any manner that results in emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use and the term “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly"

A1. While above defines what is meaning of 'manufacture' and 'manufacturer', same does NOT define 'manufacturing services'. And hence, I do not see any reason to link the meaning of 'manufacture' to interprete the term 'manufacturing services'.

A2. Furthermore, 'Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services' which is adopted for GST purpose, explains 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others' falling under HSN 9988 as follows:

"The services included under Heading 9988 are performed on physical inputs owned by units other than the units providing the service. As such, they are characterized as outsourced portions of a manufacturing process or a complete outsourced manufacturing process. Since this Heading covers manufacturing services, the output is not owned by the unit providing this service. Therefore, the value of the services in this Heading is based on the service fee paid, not the value of the goods manufactured."

A3. Once GST law does not define the term 'Manufacturing Services' but 'Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services' clearly provides its description, I feel that this description needs 'priority' (& NOT any implied meaning from definition of 'manufacture') while deciding the applicable tax-rate against Serial Number 26 of Notification 11/2017 CGST dtd. 28.06.2017' have corresponding 'Chapter, Section or Heading' mentioned as 'Heading 9988 [Manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others]'

A4. As can be seen from above explanatory note, 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others' need NOT be 'complete outsourced manufacturing process' and it can also be 'outsourced portions of a manufacturing process'.

A4.1 As per the explanatory note, the term 'manufacturing services' is used because the output is not owned by the unit providing this service. And entire explanation nowhere states / implies that activities / process/es carried by the job-worker should result into 'manufacture' so as to fall under HSN 9988.

A5. In other words, every process/es or activities (which are carried by a job-worker) need not result into 'manufacture' so as to fall under 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others under HSN 9988'.

B. Now, I have gone though your post/s here as well as your recent article as referred in the earlier post.

B1. I am of the view that even when process/es or activities (which are carried by a job-worker) need not result into 'manufacture', they still fall under 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others' under HSN 9988 as per above-said explanatory note (which is adopted for GST purpose).

B. I also believe that the activities - which are held as 'non-manufacturing process/es or activities' under erstwhile excise regime - have got nothing to do with the term 'Manufacturing Services' used at Serial Number 26 of Notification 11/2017 CGST dtd. 28.06.2017.

C. In above background, please let me now share my views point-by-point for your post No. 14:

C. I agree with you that there is no definition of 'manufacturing service'. I agree with you that the terms, 'manufacture' and 'manufacturing services' are different.

C1. I also agree with you that there are many activities/process/activity which are carried by job-worker which does not result into 'manufacture'. But, I respectfully do not agree with your view that such process / activities can be called as 'Non-Manufacturing Services'.

C2. In other words, what you refer as 'Non-Manufacturing Services / Process / Activities' when carried by a job-worker (as denied u/s 2 (68)), I believe that all such services / process / activities are nothing but 'Manufacturing Services falling under HSN 9988'.

Summarizing above, I hold following views:

As per facts of the query, both the parties involved (i.e. job-worker & the principal) are registered under GST. Applicable GST rate for such job-work is 12%. And the question of whether 'process of job-work undertaken amounts to manufacture or not' is totally irrelevant, in my view, for determination of tax-rate in given situation.

As the risk of repetition, please note that these are my personal views and same should not be taken as professional advice. And I fully respect contrary views.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Amit Agarwal Ji,

Sir, A lot of thanks for your comprehensive reply. A true picture will emerge only when audit of the units/tax payers is conducted by the department or wings of CAG. I feel that Sh. Kaustubh Karandikar Sir is still apprehensive. He is not satisfied with rate of 12%.

Regards.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Every process is not equal to manufacture----Supreme Court

Words ‘manufacturing services’ mentioned in item (iv) of entry and not ‘manufacture’ - ‘Manufacturing services’ completely different from ‘manufacture’ in ref. ENP TECHNO ENGINEERS - 2021 (1) TMI 648 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT.

Non-manufacturing services are camouflaged in the guise of 'job-work' under at serial no. (id) of Board's Circular no.126/45/19-GST dated 22.11.19 which is not correct.

So Board's clarificatory circular needs further clarification or amendment in the circular.

[Kaustubh Karandikar]

Thanks Amit ji and Kasturi ji for your elaborate views. But whether right or wrong, we have to follow the circular and go ahead unless the same is amended further.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh. Kaustubh Karandikar Ji,

Sir, You are well aware that Board's circular has no statutory force. Sometimes Board's circulars are amended or withdrawn. So we are to go by the CGST Act.

In this scenario, some undisputed fact is that the definition of 'Job-work' includes manufacturing Service, manufacturing process and non-manufacturing services.

In the absence of definition of 'manufacturing service', how can we differentiate manufacturing services (18%) from other job-work attracting concessional rate of tax 12 % ? Is there any correlation among these three terms ?

I want your response in this context.

[Kaustubh Karandikar]

Shri Kasturi ji

I fully appreciate your views. my personal view is it will attract 18% based on wordings of noification. I also fully agree that circular don't have any legal force. But when a circular suits a taxable person, he should take advantage of the same.

[Amit Agrawal]

Dear Shri Kasturi Sethi Ji,

W.r.t. your post No. 18, thank you very much for pointing out an important advance ruling (in the context of our discussion here) in case of ENP TECHNO ENGINEERS - 2021 (1) TMI 648 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT

Relevant observations are from Para 12.3 of said ruling as follows:

".........We also fully agree with the view of the applicant that the service provided by the applicant does not amount to manufacture, but the word mentioned in item(iv) of aforementioned entry is ‘manufacturing services’ and not ‘manufacture’. ‘Manufacturing services’ are completely different from ‘manufacture’. Since the definition of ‘manufacturing services’ is not available under the GST Act, 2017, the definition of the same will have to be derived in generic terms or from common parlance. We are of the opinion that ‘manufacturing services’ is not akin to ‘manufacture’ but are services which are related to the process of manufacture or assist in the process of manufacture of goods"

In said AAR ruling subject matter was 'services of Electroplating surface coating and Electroless nickel plating' - a process which does NOT amounts to 'manufacture' in erstwhile excise regime.

In other words, as per your views, this process by the job-worker is 'Non-manufacturing services' and thereby, you feel that same cannot fall under HSN 9988 or under Serial No. 26 of the concerned notification No. 11 / 2017.

But, said AAR is categorical in its findings that this process indeed falls under under 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others / HSN 9988', also under 'Serial No. 26 of the concerned notification No. 11 / 2017'. And applicable GST rate for the job-worker is 12% from 01.10.2019 onwards (& 18% for prior period).

W.r.t. issue in classification between item (id) & (iv) under heading 9988 at serial No. 26 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, I do not see any dispute what-so-ever as description of item (iv) specifically excludes item (id) from its scope.

And, Board's Circular no.126/45/19-GST dated 22.11.19 simply clarifies this difference in my view and there is no camouflage in my respectful submission.

It is worth noting that for coming to its conclusions, concerned AAR missed the important point that 'Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services' explains 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others' falling under HSN 9988 (i.e. In colum No. 2 of the Table at serial No. 26 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017).

As this aspect & implications thereto is duly covered in my earliest posts, I am not repeating the same here. And these explanatory note is directly relevant while interpreting "Chapter”, “Section” or “Heading” given (i.e. In colum No. 2 of the Table) in Notification 11/2017 CGST dtd. 28.06.2017 as per Explanation No. (ii) of Clause 4 of very same notification.

In summary, whatever logically stated in above-said AAA ruling (about what falls under 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others / HSN 9988' and also under 'Serial No. 26 of the concerned notification No. 11 / 2017') fully matched my views.

So long as activities (i.e. treatment / process undertaken) of job-worker are part / portion / assist of any manufacturing of goods, gst @ 12% is applicable from 01.10.2019 onwards (i.e. even when activities of job-worker- by themselves - does not amount to manufacture).

This is the crux I take from this AAR ruling.

And if one add 'explanatory note and its implications' - as explained by me in earlier posts - to the logic used by AAR, this further strengthen above views taken in said AAA ruling.

P.S. If activities of job-worker amounts to 'manufacture', we both agree that GST @ 12% (& NOT 18%) will be applicable on the job-work charges w.e.f. 01.10.2019. Hence, this part is not covered in the above post.

Thanks and Regards,

Amit Agrawal

[Amit Agrawal]

In continuation of my last post:

Also, kindly see 2021 (12) TMI 607 - AAR ruling IN RE: M/S. OERLIKON BALZERS INDIA PVT. LTD., where while answering Question No. 1& 2, AAR explained why & when very same activities by very same person falls under the heading ''Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others / HSN 9988" and when same does fall in that heading (i.e. when same is non-manufacturing services, generally speaking), respectively.

As per this ruling - very broadly speaking - Objective / intention of transaction (i.e. intention is to manufacture or not) is important factor to determine the process of a service-provider is ''Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others / HSN 9988" and NOT the question whether process of the service-provider amounts to manufacture or not.

Again, GST @ 12% is held as applicable for the "job-worker" (i.e. while answering the question No. 1) even though his process / treatment was admittedly does not amount to manufacture.

[Amit Agrawal]

Correction in earlier Post No. 23:

In case of ENP TECHNO ENGINEERS - 2021 (1) TMI 648 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT (2021 (1) TMI 648), AAR has held that GST @ 12% is applicable from from 22.11.2019 onwards (i.e. from date of Circular no.126/45/19-GST dated 22.11.19) and not from 01.10.2019 (i.e. date of relevant notification).

Other than this aspect, whatever logically stated in above-said AAA ruling (about what falls under 'Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others / HSN 9988' and also under 'Serial No. 26 of the concerned notification No. 11 / 2017') fully matched my views.

And as explained earlier w..r.t. issue in classification between item (id) & (iv) under heading 9988 at serial No. 26 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, I do not see any dispute what-so-ever as description of item (iv) specifically excludes item (id) from its scope. And, Board's Circular no.126/45/19-GST dated 22.11.19 simply clarifies this difference in my view and there is no camouflage in my respectful submission.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Kaustubh Karandikar Ji,

Sir, Have you perused the decision of AAR, Maharashtra In Re : S.B.Shellers (P) Ltd. reported as 2021 (10) TMI 1160 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA (published in the journal for the week of February 8-14, 2022) ? Second para refers.