Case Law Details

Case Name : In re M/s Office Official Liquidator (GST AAR Karnataka)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 22/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/09/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : AAR Karnataka (155) Advance Rulings (1102)

In re M/s Office Official Liquidator (GST AAR Karnataka)

1. M/s Office Official Liquidator, (called as the `Applicant’ hereinafter), 12th Floor, 26-27, Corporate Bhavan, M G Road, Raheja Towers, Bengaluru­ 560040 having GSTIN number 29AAAL00041R1ZP, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act 2017 & KGST Act 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of Rs.5,000/- each under the CGST Act and the KGST Act.

2. The Applicant is an official liquidator, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, Liquidator of M/s Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., and are registered under the Goods and Services Act, 2017. The Applicant being the official liquidator sold the Aircraft “Corporate Jet Airbus A-319-133 CIVT-VJM MSN 8560” to the successful bidder through global e-auction. In this regard the applicant filed the instant application seeking advance ruling, on the following questions:

1) Whether sale of the Aircraft by the Official Liquidator to a buyer located outside India qualifies to be an “Export of goods” in terms of the GST law, and hence, eligible for benefit of zero rated supply as per section 16 of the IGST Act. This is in view of the fact that the invoice for sale is raised on a buyer located outside India and that is reasonably certain that the Aircraft would be taken outside India post repairs and approvals as stated by the buyer

2) If the place of supply is not outside and this sale of the Aircraft does not qualify as “export of goods”, then what would be the place of supply?

3) Since the aircraft was imported for operation as Non-Scheduled air transport (passenger) services, can it be treated as aircraft falling under Tariff item 8802 – as aircraft other than for personal use; and since the buyer is a corporate legal entity in USA and would use the Aircraft for commercial purposes, whether the correct GST rate applicable would be 5 percent as per Entry 244 of Schedule I. Further, since the instant sale of aircraft is a subsequent sale (i.e. sale of second hand goods) would GST compensation cess be levied on such sale (given that the intention behind compensation cess is that to compensate the states for loss of revenue from the earlier duty levied on manufactured goods).

4) Since the transaction is eligible for benefit of zero-rating, can the Buyer claim a refund of the GST and the compensation cess paid by it.

5. Mrs. Kishori S Patil, Charted Accountant and authorized representative of the Applicant, appeared on behalf of the applicant, before this Authority on 29.04.2019 and submitted their arguments. Further, the authorized representative, during the subsequent personal hearing held on 12.07.2019 submitted the some additional documents, while reiterating their earlier submissions.

6. The Applicant, however, vide their letter dated 04.09.2019 have requested to permit them to withdraw the application filed for advance ruling quoting the reason that the questions raised in their application were based on Place of Supply and also sale & shipment of the aircraft has already been completed.

7. In view of the above, we pass the following

RULING

The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is disposed off as withdrawn.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *