Ruling upholds requirement to reverse input tax credit under section 17(2)/(3) for mutual fund subscription and redemption

AAAR dismissed the appeal and upheld that input tax credit reversal under section 17(2)/(3) is required for common inputs and input services used for mutual fund subscription and redemption. The authority held that "transactions in securities" under section 17(3) include mutual fund transactions via the statutory deeming fiction, and the rule treating value as one percent of the sale value applies to redemption. The appellant failed to demonstrate that subscription/redemption were in the course or furtherance of its business. The appeal was rejected.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether input tax credit (ITC) on common inputs and input services used in relation to subscription to and redemption of mutual fund units must be reversed under section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with rule 42(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

2. Whether mutual fund units being "securities" (excluded from definitions of "goods" and "services") fall outside the ambit of "exempt supply" and "non-taxable supply" under the CGST Act, thereby negating any obligation to include transactions in securities in the value of exempt supply under section 17(3).

3. Whether "redemption" of mutual fund units is legally distinct from "sale" of securities for purposes of valuation under section 17(3) and the Chapter V Explanation to the CGST Rules, 2017, and if so, whether absence of a sale value defeats the machinery for computing the value of exempt supply and reversal of ITC.

4. Whether the activity of subscription and redemption of mutual funds by a taxable person can be considered to be "in the course or furtherance of business" so as to affect entitlement to ITC under section 16(1), and whether such characterization negates the operation of section 17(2)/(3).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Obligation to reverse ITC used for subscription and redemption of mutual fund units

Legal framework: Section 16(1) allows ITC for inward supplies used in the course or furtherance of business, subject to restrictions in Section 17. Section 17(2) mandates reversal of ITC attributable to exempt supplies. Section 17(3) provides that the "value of exempt supply" shall include specified items, including "transactions in securities", and the Chapter V Explanation to the Rules prescribes valuation for securities.

Precedent treatment: Authorities and case law were cited by parties; however, the Court relied primarily on the statutory text and the delegated rule prescribing valuation of securities as one per cent of sale value.

Interpretation and reasoning: A conjoint reading of Sections 16, 17(2) and 17(3) and the Chapter V Explanation establishes that transactions in securities are expressly required to be included in the value of exempt supply. That deeming/inclusion in Section 17(3) is a statutory fiction which brings transactions in securities within the computation machinery for reversal of ITC even though "securities" are excluded from definitions of "goods" and "services". Accepting the contrary position would render the statute and the delegated Rules otiose.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ITC attributable to activities involving transactions in securities (including mutual funds) is subject to reversal under Section 17(2) read with Section 17(3) and the Chapter V Explanation.

Conclusion: The appellant is obliged to reverse proportionate ITC in respect of inputs and input services used for subscription and redemption of mutual fund units in accordance with Section 17(2)/(3) and the Rules.

Issue 2 - Status of mutual fund units as "securities" and effect on exempt/non-taxable supply classification

Legal framework: Securities are defined under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act and are excluded from the statutory definitions of "goods" and "services". The CGST Act separately defines "exempt supply" and "non-taxable supply". Section 17(3) nonetheless includes "transactions in securities" in the value of exempt supply.

Precedent treatment: The appellant relied on authorities construing classification where absence of machinery was an issue; revenue cited judgments supporting inclusion of securities within the section 17(3) deeming provision. The Court prioritized the statutory inclusion in Section 17(3).

Interpretation and reasoning: Exclusion of securities from the definitions of goods and services does not exclude "transactions in securities" from consideration for ITC reversal where the statute expressly includes such transactions in Section 17(3). The deeming provision operates to bring securities within the computation of exempt supply value for the limited purpose of ITC reversal despite their exclusion from goods/services definitions.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Mutual fund units as securities, though not goods or services, are within the scope of Section 17(3) for computing value of exempt supply and thus affect ITC reversal obligations.

Conclusion: The characterization of mutual fund units as securities does not exempt them from being included in the value of exempt supply under Section 17(3); accordingly they impact ITC reversal under Section 17(2).

Issue 3 - Whether "redemption" equates to "sale" for valuation and machinery purposes; effect of absence of sale value on reversal mechanism

Legal framework: Section 17(3) requires inclusion of transactions in securities in the value of exempt supply; the Chapter V Explanation prescribes that "the value of security shall be taken as one per cent. of the sale value of such security." There is no statutory definition of "redemption".

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the common parlance/marketability interpretive approach affirmed by higher courts in taxation contexts. Some tribunal decisions had taken a contrary view in different statutory contexts, but those decisions were distinguished on facts and statutory scheme.

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the common parlance test and industry material (AMFI, fund houses), "redemption" is the process where an investor sells units back to the AMC at applicable NAV and receives money - effectively a repurchase/sale back to the fund. Given Section 17(3)'s inclusion of "transactions in securities" and the Rules' valuation provision referencing "sale value", "redemption" must be treated as a sale for valuation purposes so that the delegated rule can operate and the legislative intent in Section 17(3) is not rendered otiose. The legislature's clear inclusion prevents defeating the reversal machinery by asserting absence of sale value. The Court also invoked the principle that clear statutory language must be given effect without rendering provisions redundant.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Redemption of mutual fund units is, for the purposes of Section 17(3) and the Chapter V Explanation, to be treated as sale/repurchase for valuation and reversal calculations; absence of an independently negotiated sale price does not defeat the application of the valuation rule.

Conclusion: Redemption is to be construed as sale/repurchase to the AMC for valuation under the Rules; hence the mechanism for computing value of exempt supply and reversal of ITC applies.

Issue 4 - Whether subscription and redemption activities amount to "course or furtherance of business" such that Section 16(1) entitlement negates Section 17 restrictions

Legal framework: Section 16(1) permits ITC where inward supplies are used in the course or furtherance of business, but that entitlement is subject to conditions and restrictions prescribed in Section 17.

Precedent treatment: Parties asserted factual characterizations; Court required evidentiary support showing these activities form part of business operations rather than treasury/investment activities. Relevant authorities cited by parties did not displace the statutory operation of Section 17(3).

Interpretation and reasoning: Even if subscription/redemption are in the course or furtherance of business, Section 17 imposes statutory restrictions and Section 17(3) expressly mandates inclusion of transactions in securities in exempt supply valuation. The appellant failed to furnish evidence to substantiate that subscription/redemption are business operations in a manner that avoids Section 17. Consequently, Section 16(1) entitlement is subject to reversal under Section 17 irrespective of the appellant's asserted business nexus.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Entitlement under Section 16(1) does not override the reversal obligations under Section 17(2)/(3); factual claim of business nexus must be substantiated and does not, by itself, negate statutory reversal.

Conclusion: The appellant's unsubstantiated assertion that subscription and redemption are in the course or furtherance of business does not avoid the statutory reversal obligations under Section 17; ITC used for such activities remains subject to reversal as per Sections 17(2)/(3) and the Rules.

Overall Conclusion

The Advance Ruling that ITC on common inputs and input services used in relation to subscription and redemption of mutual funds is available only subject to the conditions in Section 17(2) and that the value of exempt supply includes transactions in securities under Section 17(3) is upheld. Redemption of mutual fund units is to be treated as sale/repurchase for valuation and reversal purposes, and the appellant's contentions to the contrary are rejected. The appeal is dismissed.

---