9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be admitted as per the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act. Hence without discussing the merits of the case, we reject the subject application as not being maintainable. The question with regard to ITC need not be answered. - GST-ARA-59/2019-20/B-28 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2020 - MS. P. VINITHA SEKHAR, MR. A. A. CHAHURE, MEMBER PROCEEDINGS (Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under Section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and MGST Act respectively] by M/s. FUTUREDENT , the applicant, seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uyer for Famdent exhibition, trade and awards business. 2.3 FR introduced M/s Messe Dusseldorf Germany (MDG), who further introduced their India subsidiary M/s Messe Dusseldorf India Private Limited (MDIPL) to applicant company. 2.4 MDG is involved in organizing Trade Fairs and Exhibitions globally. Its wholly owned subsidiary, MDIPL is an Indian company involved in trade fair organizing and is a provider of trade fair related services for exhibitors and visitors in India. 2.5 MDIPL purchased exhibition, trade and Award business and brand name Famdent and Famdent Awards from the applicant i.e Futuredent (earlier known as Famdent) on Slump sale Basis. Futuredent continues to do other businesses in the same entity. 2.6 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buyer. 2.9.2 In the subject case, the supplier of intermediary services, in this case, FR, is located outside India and the applicant, the receiver of such services, is located in India but the place of supply of the impugned services is outside India as per Section 13(8) (b) of the IGST Act, 2017. Therefore the impugned services cannot be considered as Import of services under the GST Laws. Thus, payment to be made by the applicant to FR would not fall within the purview of imports to attract payment of GST on a reverse charge basis by the applicant. 2.10. The second question raised by the applicant is, if at all they are required to pay GST under reverse charge basis, then whether applicant will get ITC on such RCM paid. 2.10.1 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to GST under reverse charge mechanism. 3.3 The nature of goods or services supplied by an intermediary must be same as goods or services supplied by the principal. If the nature of supply of goods or services by a person is different from the supply of principal, it cannot be said that the person is merely arranging or facilitating supply of goods or services. An intermediary cannot alter the nature or value of supply, which he facilitates on behalf of his principal. Further, a person can arrange or facilitates supply of goods or services belonging to some other person only when he has been authorised by the principal. In view of this, the test of agency must be satisfied between the principal and the agent i.e. the intermediary. 3.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.01.2020. Shri Haseet Bathiya, Advocate, appeared along with Shri Akshay Sharma, C.A. and Authorized Representative, made oral and written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer Shri Sachin Sangale, Assistant Commissioner of S.T. Nodal -07, lvlumbai appeared along with Ms. Smita Ajbe State Tax Officer (C-719), Nodal -07, Mumbai. 4.3 Final hearing was held on 03.03.2020 during which Shri Haseet Bathiya, Advocate appeared along with Shri. Akshay Sharma C.A. Authorized Representative, made oral and written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer Sh. Sachin Sangale, Assistant Commissioner of S.T. Nodal -07, Mumbai also appeared and made submissions. We heard both the sides. 05. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS: 5.1 We have gone through the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssential that we first determine whether or not the activities undertaken by the applicant pertains to the supply of goods of services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. 5.4 We find that the applicant has not undertaken the supply in the subject case, and is also not proposing to undertake the supply. We find that, the applicant is a recipient of services from a person situated abroad. The impugned transactions are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and therefore, the subject application cannot be admitted as per the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act. Hence without discussing the merits of the case, we reject the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
