9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ARA application filed by them. As the Applicant has requested for withdrawal of their Advance Ruling Application, the application is treated as withdrawn without going into the merits or detailed facts of the case. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which advance ruling sought for A Category Service Recipient B Description (in brief) Legal charges incurred by FWEL, UK which was apportioned to the FWGB, Project Office. Issue/s on which advance ruling required Whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of the term. Question(s) on which advance ruling is required 1. Whether the legal cost apportionment by FWEL to the Applicant amounts to the supply under GST? 2. If so, whether the Applicant is required to pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)? The Applicant is M/s Foster Wheeler (G.B.) Limited, Project Office, 6th Floor, Zenith Build ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L shall raise monthly invoices on FWGB for the services provided. * That a notice of arbitration was issued by FWEL and FWGB to IOCL initiating arbitration proceedings in India. After hearing both the parties, Arbitral Tribunal issued four partial awards primarily in favour of FWEL and FWGB. IOCL contested and filed petitions for their annulment before the High Court of Delhi. * That since the Project was nearing completion, IOCL, FWEL and FWGB entered into a Settlement agreement dated 11.10.2017 and as a result FWEL received a sum of money for the dues from IOCL * That FWEL would directly make the payment for expenses related to arbitration proceedings to the third party service providers, invoices raised by the service provider on F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n activity would qualify as a service. 3.3. They further stated that the apportionment of legal cost by FWEL to the Applicant does not qualify to be an import of service since in the first place, it does not qualify as 'Supply' itself. Moreover, the term consideration defined in Section 2(31) of the CGST Act, 2017, implies that there has to be a sufficient nexus between the payment and supply; Mere payment alone cannot constitute a supply unless such payment has a direct nexus with an underlying supply; In the instant case, there is clearly no identifiable activity for which the amount of legal expenses has been apportioned towards the Applicant; There is no positive act done by FWEL that could result in a supply except making paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd & Anr Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat and certain other tribunal decisions. For the question raised by the Members that when the Arbitration was completed, he stated that it was initiated in 2012 and settlement arrived in 2017 and since the cost allocation is during the GST regime, they had raised in question. The AR requested for another hearing. 5.2. Further to this the Applicant was given next opportunity to appear for virtual hearing on 20.07.2022 and again on 17.08.2022. The Applicant sought adjournment vide their mail dated 18.07.2022. 5.3. Since there was change in the Advance Ruling Authorities, another opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
