Case Law Details
In re Hilti Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Gujarat)
It has been submitted by appellant that inadvertently wrong facts were mentioned in the Advance Ruling Application dated 31.03.2021 filed by the appellant before the Advance Ruling Authority on 01.04.2021. It has been submitted that the GAAR had given its ruling based on the submission that the foreign customer sends the product samples/goods for R&D testing purposes to the appellant in India and that the appellant carries out R&D activity on such goods provided to them by the foreign customer. However the correct facts as informed by the appellant is that the goods on which R&D services are carried out are manufactured in India by the appellant and the detailed report is provided to the foreign customer after carrying out R&D testing thereon.
We find that the appellant in their application made before the GAAR has submitted that the foreign entities send the product samples/goods for R&D purposes to the appellant in India; that the appellant is carrying out such R&D activity in India on the goods provided to them by the foreign customers and submitting a detailed report to them thereafter. The appellant have also submitted that they have entered into a contract with Hilti Aktiengesellschaft. pursuant to which, the appellant is carrying out R&D services on the samples / goods provided by the foreign company, which is located outside India. Now the appellant before this authority has submitted that these were inadvertently wrong facts mentioned in the advance ruling application made before the GAAR. They have now pointed out that the goods arc not supplied to the appellant by the foreign customer but the same is manufactured by the appellant in India and detailed report is provided to the foreign customer after carrying out R&D testing thereon. We find that there has been significant change in the facts of the case presented before the GAAR and now made before this authority by the appellant. They stated during the course of personal hearing that the matter may be remanded back to GAAR for fresh consideration and decision.
The appellant has now’ presented new facts which have not been placed before the GAAR and the ruling given by the GAAR is thus based on different facts. Further, as the appellant have got the subject advance ruling based on different set of facts, the advance ruling given is not valid in view of the provisions of Section 103(2) and 104(1) of the CGST Act. 2017.
In view of the above discussion we find it fit to remand the matter to the Authority for Advance Ruling i.e. the GAAR for fresh decision.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
