Fraudulent transactions still constitute taxable supply under GST law despite no consideration received under section 7

The AAR, Gujarat ruled that goods supplied by an applicant who became a fraud victim without receiving consideration still constitutes "supply" under GST law. Despite the applicant's contention that the fraudulent/bogus transaction should exclude it from the definition of supply, the Authority held that fraud may vitiate a contract but does not remove the transaction from the ambit of "supply" as defined under section 7. The goods supplied were considered taxable supply under sections 20 of IGST Act and sections 12 and 7 of CGST Act.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) was whether the goods supplied by the applicant, who became a victim of fraud without receiving consideration, could be regarded as a "supply of goods" under the provisions of Section 21 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. Implicitly, the issue involved the applicability of GST liability on goods supplied pursuant to a fraudulent order and whether such supply attracts tax liability despite non-receipt of payment. The question also engaged the interpretation of the term "supply" under the GST law, particularly in the context of a contract vitiated by fraud.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Whether goods supplied pursuant to a fraudulent order, without receipt of consideration, constitute "supply" under the IGST Act, 2017, and thereby attract tax liability.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The AAR considered the provisions of the IGST Act, 2017, specifically Section 21 (Import of services) and Section 20 (Application of provisions of CGST Act), and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, particularly Sections 7 (Scope of supply) and 12 (Time of supply of goods). Section 7 of the CGST Act defines "supply" expansively to include all forms of supply of goods or services or both, such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease, or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration in the course or furtherance of business. The AAR also referred to the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, and a Supreme Court judgment (Devas Multimedia P Ltd v/s Antrix Corporation Ltd) cited by the applicant concerning the essential elements of a valid contract.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The AAR observed that Section 21 of the IGST Act pertains specifically to the import of services and found it inapplicable to the supply of goods in this case. The question as framed was considered vague and not directly relevant to the facts. The AAR emphasized that the supply of goods was inter-state and therefore liable to Integrated GST (IGST) if it qualified as "supply" under the law.

Relying on Section 12 of the CGST Act (made applicable to IGST by Section 20(iii) of the IGST Act), the AAR noted that the time of supply is the earlier of the date of issue of invoice or the date of receipt of payment. The applicant had issued invoices for the goods supplied, and dispatch records and invoice details were submitted as evidence. Therefore, the supply was deemed to have taken place at the date of invoice issuance.

The applicant's argument that the transaction was void due to fraud and hence not a valid contract was rejected. The AAR clarified that the GST law is levied on "supply" and not on "sale". The definition of "supply" under Section 7 is broad and does not require the existence of a valid contract in the strict contractual sense. The AAR held that the element of fraud may vitiate a contract, but it does not exclude the transaction from being a "supply" under GST law. The goods were physically supplied and received at the destination, as corroborated by the FIR. The fraudulent nature of the order does not exempt the applicant from GST liability on the supply made.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The applicant submitted copies of invoices, dispatch details, and a first information report (FIR) indicating that the goods were dispatched and received. The invoices covered 5,660 submersible pumps with a total value of Rs. 141,500,000. The FIR, though in vernacular, was accepted as evidence of the supply having taken place. The applicant's claim of non-receipt of payment due to fraud was noted but did not negate the fact of supply.

Application of Law to Facts:

The AAR applied the statutory definition of "supply" under Section 7 of the CGST Act to the facts and concluded that the physical delivery of goods along with issuance of invoices constituted a supply. The absence of consideration due to fraudulent conduct does not remove the transaction from the ambit of supply. The time of supply was determined based on the date of invoice issuance as per Section 12 of the CGST Act. The provisions of Section 21 of the IGST Act, relating to import of services, were found irrelevant to the facts.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The applicant's reliance on the Sales of Goods Act and the Supreme Court ruling on contract validity was considered but ultimately rejected. The AAR distinguished the concept of "sale" under contract law from "supply" under GST law. It was held that GST liability arises on supply irrespective of contractual disputes or fraud affecting the underlying contract. The AAR did not accept the argument that fraud negates supply for GST purposes.

Conclusions:

The goods supplied by the applicant pursuant to the fraudulent order constitute "supply" under the IGST Act and CGST Act. The supply attracts GST liability even though the applicant did not receive consideration due to fraud. The time of supply is the date of invoice issuance. The provisions relating to import of services are not applicable to this case.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The AAR held:

"The goods supplied by the applicant will be considered as supply of goods in terms of section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with section 12 and 7 of the CGST Act, 2017."

Core principles established include:

• The definition of "supply" under GST law is broad and includes all forms of supply made or agreed to be made for consideration in the course or furtherance of business, regardless of contractual validity or fraud affecting the contract.
• An element of fraud vitiating the contract does not exclude the transaction from the ambit of "supply" under GST law.
• GST liability arises on the occurrence of supply, determined by the time of supply provisions, irrespective of receipt of payment.
• Provisions related to import of services under Section 21 of the IGST Act are not applicable to supply of goods.

The ruling clarifies that suppliers cannot evade GST liability on goods supplied even if the order was fraudulent and payment was not received, as the tax is levied on the supply event and not on the contractual validity or payment realization.

---