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

P&H HC issues detailed guidelines on ITC denial for supplier’s non-payment

Background According to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, if tax charged in respect of…

3 weeks ago

Can consequential refund, arising from OIA, be rejected by OIO?

Background Order-in-Original (OIO, which partly rejected refund) was set aside by Order-in-Appeal (OIA). Fresh refund…

1 month ago

Inviolable principles governing Section 74 proceedings

"But for the audit undertaken by the Department, the suppression of facts would have gone…

1 month ago

Non-response to SCN & DRC01A construed as suppression: Madras HC

Background Intimation in DRC-01A and Show Cause Notice (SCN) were issued. The Petitioner failed to…

3 months ago

HC quashes GST notice & order for non-quantification of interest in notice

Issue The show cause notice issued to the Petitioner did not quantify the proposed demand…

6 months ago

Is limitation period of 2 years applicable to duplicate payments under GST law?

Issue The petitioner in the citation referred first infra, by mistake, made a duplicate payment…

7 months ago