Foreign supplier pays IGST on imported warranty parts, dealer cannot claim ITC under section 16

AAR Gujarat held that the applicant cannot claim ITC on IGST paid by foreign supplier for imported warranty parts. The applicant, under dealership agreement with German company, provides warranty services using imported parts where IGST is paid by the foreign supplier. Since the applicant's invoices to the foreign supplier cover only service charges and exclude parts costs, and the foreign supplier pays the IGST, the applicant is not entitled to claim ITC under section 16 of CGST Act, 2017.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) was whether the applicant is eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on import of parts used in warranty services, where the IGST on such imports has been paid by the foreign supplier and not by the applicant. The question was framed as:

o Whether the IGST on import of parts, paid by the foreign supplier, is available as ITC to the applicant.

Additionally, the applicant acknowledged that the warranty service invoices raised on the foreign supplier are for services rendered in India and hence are not exports of services, although the determination of place of supply was not itself a matter for advance ruling.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Eligibility of ITC on IGST paid on import of parts by foreign supplier

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principal provision considered was Section 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which stipulates that every registered person is entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business, subject to prescribed conditions. The ruling also referred to the principle that ITC is not a vested right at the time of receipt of inputs but becomes available only upon satisfaction of all vesting conditions, including participation in a taxable outward supply.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AAR examined the facts that the applicant had a Dealership and Service Representation Agreement with the foreign supplier M/s. MUEGGE GmbH, Germany, under which the applicant provides warranty services in India for industrial microwaves supplied by M/s. MUEGGE GmbH. The warranty services are free of cost to the customers, and the applicant raises invoices on the foreign supplier for service charges. The parts needed for warranty repairs are imported, and the IGST on such imports is paid by the foreign supplier, not the applicant.

The AAR noted that the invoice raised by the applicant on the foreign supplier did not include the cost of spare parts, only service charges. The import of parts is in the applicant's name, but the foreign supplier bears the IGST on import. The applicant's GSTR-2B statement reflected ITC on such IGST, but the applicant reversed this ITC monthly as a temporary measure due to lack of clarity.

Key evidence and findings: The Dealership and Service Representation Agreement detailed the applicant's obligation to provide warranty services free of cost to customers and to invoice the supplier for such services. The applicant provided a copy of the commercial invoice for warranty services and a bill of entry showing import of parts with IGST paid by the foreign supplier. The invoice did not include parts, and the foreign supplier bore the import tax burden.

Application of law to facts: The AAR applied Section 16(1) of the CGST Act and fundamental principles of ITC entitlement. Since the IGST on parts was paid by the foreign supplier and the applicant did not include the value of parts in its taxable outward supply (invoice to the foreign supplier), the parts did not participate in a taxable outward supply by the applicant. Consequently, the applicant could not claim ITC on IGST paid on those parts. The ITC reflected in GSTR-2B was not determinative, as ITC entitlement depends on satisfying all conditions, including participation in a taxable supply.

Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's argument for ITC eligibility was based on the reflection of ITC in GSTR-2B and the import being in the applicant's name. The AAR rejected this, emphasizing that ITC is not a vested right and that the applicant's outward supply did not include the cost of parts, thus no tax was paid on those inputs in the outward supply. The AAR also noted that the purpose of ITC is to avoid cascading tax effect, which does not arise here as the parts are not part of the taxable supply.

Conclusions: The applicant is not entitled to claim ITC on IGST paid on imported parts by the foreign supplier under the given facts and legal provisions.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The AAR held:

"The applicant is not eligible for IGST on imports of parts paid by the foreign supplier M/s. MUEGGE GmbH, in terms of section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017."

The ruling established the core principle that ITC can only be claimed by a registered person who has paid the tax and whose outward supply includes the inputs or input services on which ITC is claimed. Mere reflection of ITC in GSTR-2B or import of goods in the applicant's name does not confer ITC entitlement if the tax is paid by another entity and the inputs do not form part of the applicant's taxable outward supply.

The judgment underscored that ITC is not a vested right on receipt of inputs but is conditional on participation in a taxable supply to avoid cascading tax effect. The applicant's warranty service, being free to customers and invoiced only to the foreign supplier excluding parts, did not satisfy these conditions for ITC on IGST paid on imported parts.

---