GST Rulings

GST Taxability of Repairs / Maintenance Service by Branch of Foreign Company

In Re: IZ-Kartex named after P.G Korobkov Ltd. - Ruling dated June 29, 2020 - Authority for Advance Rulings (West Bengal)

Background: The local branch of a foreign company contracted to undertake repairs and maintenance of machinery for an Indian company.

Query(ies): Who is liable to pay GST on the aforesaid supply? That is:

  • Should this transaction be treated as supply of service by the foreign company to the Indian company? If so, the Indian company is liable to pay GST under reverse charge for import of service; or
  • Should this be treated as supply of service by the branch of foreign company to the Indian company? If so, the branch is liable to pay GST under forward charge.

Observation(s): The rights, duties and obligations under the contract were not distinguished between the foreign company and its branch in India. The service provider was supposed to maintain suitable human and technical resources at the site of the service recipient. The tenor of the contract spanned 17 years. Owing to these factors, it was concluded that services were supplied at the site from "fixed establishment" under Section 2(7) of IGST Act. As a corollary, the location of supplier should be India under Section 2(15)(b) of IGST Act.

Ruling: It was, therefore, ruled that there is no import of service from the foreign company by the Indian company. Rather, the branch of the foreign company is liable to pay GST under forward charge.

Comment(s): In the aforesaid ruling, the authority has interpreted the term "supply" from a physical perspective. However, an in-depth reading of the IGST Act gives a perspective that the term "supply" should be read in the legal sense. That is, privity of contract should have been analysed.

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 Goods were detained &…

1 month ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

2 months ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

2 months ago

GST | Should the date of issue of notice/order be included to calculate limitation?

Order of the Patna High Court [dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs.…

2 months ago

Notice/order can be served on the portal only if it cannot be served in person / by post / email: Madras HC

Order of the High Court of Madras [dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority,…

3 months ago

Goods intercepted due to absence of e-invoice; proceedings to lie u/s.122 not s.129 CGST Act: HC

Order of the High Court of Kerala [dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant…

5 months ago