2019 (8) TMI 1084 - AAAR - GST

Denial of Input Tax Credit for Central GST paid in Haryana by Private Limited Company

In Re: M/s. IMF Cognitive Technology (P) Ltd., Jaipur

The Private Limited Company's appeal against the denial of input tax credit (ITC) of Central GST paid in Haryana was dismissed. The Appellate Authority ... Input tax credit - Central Tax paid in Haryana - Applicant registered in Rajasthan State - Territorial Jurisdiction - location and place of supply - Challenge to AAR decision - HELD THAT:- The credit of input tax is admissible to a registered person, subject to conditions and restrictions, and input tax inter alia is Central tax charged on inward supply of a registered person. Going further, Central tax is Central GST levied under Section 9 of the CGST Act. After going through the Section 9(1), it is found that the Central GST is a tax levied on all intra-State supplies of goods or services or both Going ahead, Intra-state supply of service, as per Section 8(2) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017 means supply of services where the location of the supplier and place of supply of services are in the same State. Thus crux of the matter is that for a person registered in Rajasthan, Central GST or Central tax is a tax levied under Section 9 ibid on supplies having both location of the supplier and place of supply in Rajasthan. At this point it becomes absolutely clear that ITC of the Central GST or Central tax would be available to a person registered in Rajasthan if the location of the supplier and place of supply of the services are in Rajasthan. Thus, ITC of the Central tax charged from the Appellant in Haryana is not available to them as in this case both the location of the supplier and place of supply of the services are in the State of Haryana. AAR ruling upheld - appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Interpretation of input tax credit provisions under CGST Act, 2017 and RGST Act, 2017.2. Applicability of input tax credit on Central GST paid in a different state.3. Admissibility of input tax credit based on location of supplier and place of supply.4. Justification for denying input tax credit by the AAR.5. Correlation between admissibility of credit and place of supply.Issue 1: Interpretation of input tax credit provisions under CGST Act, 2017 and RGST Act, 2017The appeal was filed by a Private Limited Company against an Advance Ruling denying them input tax credit (ITC) of Central GST paid in Haryana. The Appellant contended that the ITC provisions allowed them to claim credit of the Central GST paid on input services in Haryana. The Appellate Authority analyzed Section 16(1) of the CGST Act, which allows a registered person to take credit of input tax charged on supplies used in the course of business. The definition of input tax under Section 2(62) includes Central tax charged on supplies to a registered person. The Authority examined Section 9(1) of the CGST Act, which levies Central GST on intra-State supplies. The decision focused on the applicability of Central GST based on the location of the supplier and place of supply, determining the admissibility of ITC.Issue 2: Applicability of input tax credit on Central GST paid in a different stateThe Appellant sought clarity on whether the ITC of Central GST paid in Haryana is admissible to them as they are registered in Rajasthan. The Authority highlighted that ITC is available on Central tax charged on inward supplies, with Central tax being Central GST levied under Section 9 of the CGST Act. It was emphasized that for a person registered in Rajasthan, ITC of Central GST is available only if the location of the supplier and place of supply are in Rajasthan. Since in this case both were in Haryana, the ITC of Central GST paid in Haryana was deemed not admissible to the Appellant.Issue 3: Admissibility of input tax credit based on location of supplier and place of supplyThe Authority delved into the provisions of the CGST Act to determine the admissibility of ITC based on the location of the supplier and place of supply. It was established that for a person registered in Rajasthan, ITC of Central GST is available when both the location of the supplier and place of supply of services are in Rajasthan. As the services in question were supplied and consumed in Haryana, the ITC of Central GST paid in Haryana was deemed not admissible to the Appellant.Issue 4: Justification for denying input tax credit by the AARThe Appellant raised concerns regarding the AAR's interpretation of the law and its decision to deny them ITC of Central tax paid in Haryana. The Authority justified its ruling by aligning it with the provisions of the CGST Act, emphasizing the correlation between the applicability of Central GST and State GST. It was clarified that if an event attracts Central GST, State GST is also applicable, leading to the conclusion that ITC of Central GST paid in Haryana was not admissible to the Appellant.Issue 5: Correlation between admissibility of credit and place of supplyThe Appellant questioned the AAR's decision based on the location of the supplier and place of supply, arguing that the provisions for the admissibility of ITC are separately provided under Chapter V of the CGST Act. However, the Authority emphasized that the applicability of ITC is intricately linked to the location of the supplier and place of supply, as evidenced by the provisions of the CGST Act. It was concluded that the ITC of Central GST paid in Haryana was not admissible to the Appellant due to the specific requirements outlined in the Act.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the interpretation and applicability of input tax credit provisions under the CGST Act, 2017 and RGST Act, 2017, specifically in the context of Central GST paid in a different state and its admissibility based on the location of the supplier and place of supply.