Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited (GST AAAR Goa)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling Order No. GOA/AAAR/02/2019-20/3071
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/02/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited (GST AAAR Goa)

The Authority held that in terms of Section 13 (3) the place of supply of service is in Goa, India, since in the given factual situation, the samples/goods on which the testing service is to be performed by the appellant were made available by the service recipients, which squarely fits into the situation specified under the said Section 13 (3) only. Consequently, the ‘place of supply of services’ has to be the location where this services are actually performed, which again admittedly is in Goa. And therefore that the services do not fall within ‘export of services’ vide Sec. 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017.

The statutory provisions vide Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 are very clearly worded. That is, sub-Section (2) states that place of supply of services, except the services specified in sub-Sections (3) to (13) shall be the location of the recipient of services. Sub-Section (3)(a) is specific with regard to ‘services supplied in respect of goods which are required to be made physically available by the recipient to the supplier… in order to provide the services’. The appellant has not disputed the applicability of the said sub-Section (3)(a) to their transactions, in any manner. They have not disputed that the ‘services in respect of the goods provided by the recipient’ are actually performed in India i.e., Goa. The outcome of the services being reports which are sent to the recipient abroad or that the service recipient is concerned only with the test-report, can have no bearing or relevance, once the statutory provision is clearly, plainly and unambiguously worded, as above and it is impermissible to expand the laid down criterion or to interpolate and insert words/phrases which are not used in such provisions.

As regards the second issue involved i.e., whether appellant is liable to pay IGST on the aforesaid supply of services, we find that since the supplier of service is in Goa, India and place of supply of service as determined under Section 13(3)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 is also in Goa, India, the same falls under “Intra-State” supply of services as per Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, 2017 whereby the provisions under Section 7(5)(c) claimed by the appellant would not be applicable. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay CGST and SGST on the aforesaid supply of service, as held by the lower authority.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR  ADVANCE RULING, GOA

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031