Case Law Details
Jindal Drugs Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
In this case, supply has been made by the petitioner to FTWZ for onward shipment at the behest of the purchaser, UTEXAM, to a location of its choice. This modus operandi is supported by the documentation placed on record by the petitioner.
Thus, DHL logistics, the FTWZ, merely offers a facility to the petitioner to warehouse its consignments that are to be exported. The destination is decided by UTEXAM, which is the ultimate purchaser, which has paid the petitioner in USD for the consignment. The stipulation in Clause (vii) deals with exports made by a unit in the FTWZ. DHL, the FTWZ does not export the consignments but only facilitates such exports. The exports are thus, by the petitioner through DHL to a destination abroad.
To a query as to why the transaction was so structured, the petitioner explains stating that the consignments in question were, purchases by UTEXAM on behalf of Colgate Palmolive for supply at any number of the units of the latter. As and when the destination is decided, DHL is intimated of the same and the consignments shipped to that destination.
The exports in this case have already taken place at the point when the petitioner executes the relevant documents and the consignments are stored in the FTWZ, awaiting confirmation of the destination. This would avoid the circuitous route of shipment to UTEXAM at Ireland, and then onward to a final destination accompanied by multiple transportation costs and logistical complications. The role of DHL in this transaction is that of a warehouse and nothing more. The concept of ‘ship to’ and ‘bill to’, as used in this case, has been recognised under the GST regime, as commercial compulsions dictate, that transactions are to be structured in the most economical and least cumbersome manner in terms of time, procedure and expense involved.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
