Page 111 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4
P. 111

2020 ]    IN RE : AUTOMATIVE COMPONENTS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.   621
               ally and the Sale of Goods Act also recognizes that goods may be retained by the
               seller after the sale. To determine the nature/character of the supply as an intra-
               State or inter-State supply it is important to determine Supplier and Place  of
               supply. As the moulds are supplied by the Applicant to the Indian buyer, by way
               of transfer in title, the Applicant is said to be the ‘Supplier’. With regard to place
               of supply, Section 10(1)(c) would get attracted inasmuch as there is no movement
               of goods from Thailand by any of the parties to the transaction and thus the place
               of supply of goods would be Thailand where the goods are notionally delivered
               to ACTI who in turn notionally delivers the material to Indian buyer. From the
               above it is seen that the given transaction could get covered under the ambit of
               inter-State supply under IGST Act.  However,  it seems that GST may not take
               within its fold a transaction wherein the place of supply is outside the territory of
               India. It thus appears that the transactions mentioned by the applicant may not
               fall within the purview of SGST/CGST or IGST. Also as per section of IGST Act,
               it extends to whole of India except State of Jammu & Kashmir and as per the def-
               inition of India under Section 2(56) of CGST Act, the transaction in the case is
               outside the territorial jurisdiction of IGST Act. In light of the above facts the ap-
               plicant contends that the transaction would not subject to IGST.
                       2.3  Further, the applicant contends that the said transaction does not
               constitute import of goods as there is no physical movement of goods into India.
               Thus the transactions do not qualify  as  an inter-State or intra-State supply of
               goods and would fall outside the purview of CGST/SGST/IGST. They have also
               stated that transaction was not taxable under the erstwhile indirect tax. Also the
               Parliament is empowered to formulate the principles to determine when the
               supply is said to be made outside the State or in the course of import or export.
               However, no such principles have been formulated till date for GST.
                       2.4  Further, the applicant has submitted that if at all tax is applicable on
               the transaction then input tax credit of the same should be available to the recipi-
               ent of Supply as the major objective of introducing GST is to allow seamless flow
               of credit to the trade and industry to make Indian Business and Indian products
               cost effective and competitive in international market. The applicant has stated
               that ITC should be applicable as per Section 16(2)(b) of CGST Act, 2017. The Ap-
               plicant contends that if a transaction is hold to be liable qua the supplier and not
               the goods or services or both, then in the same analogy on the very transaction
               the credit of input tax needs to be allowed based on the recipient and not wheth-
               er the goods or services or both had been received or not. If the transaction is
               deemed to be an inter-State supply and if the same is made liable to GST then it
               should be deemed that such goods have been received from perspective and the
               credit should accordingly be made available to him.
                       3.1  The applicant was extended an opportunity of personal hearing on
               18-6-2019. However, they did not appear for the hearing. The applicant was ex-
               tended  another opportunity on  23-7-2019 for which the  applicant sought ad-
               journment by three weeks vide their letter dated 10-7-2019. The applicant was
               accordingly extended an opportunity of personal hearing on 28-8-2019. The au-
               thorised representative of the applicant appeared for personal hearing on 28-8-
               2019 and furnished a written submission. They submitted the tool utilization cer-
               tificate which states that the tools are used for Nissan Motors India Private Lim-
               ited/Renault Nissan Automative India Pvt. Limited/Renault India Pvt. Limited.
               They stated that they will submit details of all transactions between them and the
               recipient in respect of the mould tools and parts involved. They also stated that
                                    GST LAW TIMES      26th March 2020      207
   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116