The registered place of business cannot be termed a fixed establishment. we modify the order of Advance Ruling to the extent that the supply of service by the appellant to BCCL qualifies as import of service as defined under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017 and GST is payable on such import of service by BCCL under reverse charge mechanism
Export of service- The appellant IZ-KARTEX Russian Federation entered into a Maintenance and Repair Contract with Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. for maintenance of 4 nos. of Electric Rope Shovel, supplied by the appellant.
The appellant company sought advance ruling to specify the person who is liable to pay tax in the aforesaid circumstances and whether it is legally justified by BCCL to deduct GST from payments made to the foreign company.
it is seen that the IZ-Kartex named after Korobkov, the Russian company has entered into the MARC with BCCL. They have deployed DDP-N, an Indian company as the subcontractor. DDP-N in turn, issues invoice to the Russian company. Again, the Russian company is raising bills on BCCL against supply of service. Hence, it is amply clear that the service is being provided by the appellant’s foreign entity. Contrary to any material finding in the order of the Advance Ruling, it is clear beyond doubt that the conditions of import as mentioned above are satisfied in the present case.
Held that- In view of the above findings, we modify the order of Advance Ruling to the extent that the supply of service by the appellant to BCCL qualifies as import of service as defined under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017 and GST is payable on such import of service by BCCL under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
The registered place of business cannot be termed a fixed establishment. we modify the order of Advance Ruling to the extent that the supply of service by the appellant to BCCL qualifies as import of service as defined under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017 and GST is payable on such import of service by BCCL under reverse charge mechanism
Export of service- The appellant IZ-KARTEX Russian Federation entered into a Maintenance and Repair Contract with Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. for maintenance of 4 nos. of Electric Rope Shovel, supplied by the appellant.
The appellant company sought advance ruling to specify the person who is liable to pay tax in the aforesaid circumstances and whether it is legally justified by BCCL to deduct GST from payments made to the foreign company.
it is seen that the IZ-Kartex named after Korobkov, the Russian company has entered into the MARC with BCCL. They have deployed DDP-N, an Indian company as the subcontractor. DDP-N in turn, issues invoice to the Russian company. Again, the Russian company is raising bills on BCCL against supply of service. Hence, it is amply clear that the service is being provided by the appellant’s foreign entity. Contrary to any material finding in the order of the Advance Ruling, it is clear beyond doubt that the conditions of import as mentioned above are satisfied in the present case.
Held that- In view of the above findings, we modify the order of Advance Ruling to the extent that the supply of service by the appellant to BCCL qualifies as import of service as defined under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017 and GST is payable on such import of service by BCCL under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.