Case Law Details
In re Metayage IP Strategy Consulting LLP (GST AAR Karnataka)
In the case of Metayage IP Strategy Consulting LLP (GST AAR Karnataka), the applicant, a Limited Liability Partnership firm engaged in providing legal services related to intellectual property, sought an advance ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the KGST Act, 2017. They provide services such as drafting and filing patent, trademark, and copyright applications.
The firm classified their services under SAC 998213 as “Legal Documentation and Certification Services concerning Patents, Copyrights and Other Intellectual Property Rights” and have been charging, collecting, and paying GST on both domestic and imported services.
The applicant sought clarification on who is liable to discharge GST on legal services provided under the reverse charge mechanism. The applicant did not submit the hard copies of the application and later requested to withdraw the application via email on March 1, 2024.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) Karnataka allowed the withdrawal and disposed of the application as withdrawn.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
ORDER UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 & UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE KGST ACT, 2017
M/s. Metayage IP Strategy Consulting LLP, No.207, EGPI Arcadia 32, Banaswadi Main Road, Jai Bharath Nagar, Bengaluru- 560033 having GSTIN 29AAVFM9996N1ZL have filed an application, online, for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 97 of KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of KGST Rules, 2017.
2. The Applicant stated that they are a Limited Liability Partnership firm and also a legal service firm under the Patent Act 1970; they provide property protection services like drafting and filing patent, trademark and copyright applications for their clients in India and elsewhere; they file the patent applications with the Indian Patent Office as a qualified and recognized Patent Agent, not as a lawyer per se, as they are authorised to practice Patent Law in India; the applications, forms and other documents, prepared by the applicant are also filed by other trade mark attorneys or patent practitioners in other countries.
3. The applicant classified their service as “Business and Production Service”, under the SAC 998213, covered under “Legal Service” having description Legal Documentation and Certification Services concerning Patents, Copyrights and Other Intellectual Property Rights; they have been charging, collecting and paying GST on both i.e. the service fees received by them and also the service fee paid by them to foreign attorneys treating the same as import of service.
4. In view of the above, the applicant sought advance ruling in respect of the question that “Who is liable to discharge GST in respect of the Legal Services as the said services are covered under reverse charge mechanism”
5. The applicant had not submitted the hard copies of the instant application and on enquiry they informed through e-mail dated 01.03.2024 that they intend to withdraw the application and requested to permit them to withdraw the instant application.
6. In view of the above, we pass the following,
RULING
The application filed by the applicant for advance ruling is disposed off as withdrawn.
