Dear Sirji
With due respect, it is humbly submitted that the sweep of the term “supply” under the GST framework is deliberately kept wider than what was envisaged under the erstwhile CENVAT/ CST/VAT enactments. The legislative intent is clear — every subsequent transfer of goods or services, regardless of the fact that such goods may have borne tax in a pre-GST regime, constitutes a fresh taxable event under GST. In this backdrop, the re-sale of used assets such as laptops cannot be construed as “double taxation.” The earlier incidence of duty or VAT was under a distinct law and on a different taxable event. The GST levy is on a new supply under a new regime.
The doctrine against double taxation, as laid down by courts, operates within the same statute and not across two distinct legislative fields. At the same time, the statute provides a calibrated safeguard through Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which enables levy only on the margin where no input tax credit has been availed. This mechanism reflects the legislative sensitivity to equity, ensuring that the taxpayer is not burdened disproportionately and the transaction is taxed only to the extent of actual value addition.
Viewed thus, the law achieves a judicious balance between its expansive scope of taxation and the need to avoid cascading. In my respectful view, therefore, levy of GST on re-sale of old and used goods is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the statute. Nevertheless, the jurisprudence under earlier indirect tax regimes remains a fertile ground to derive interpretative guidance, and your reference to case law in this regard is indeed an enriching contribution to the discourse.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
.jpg){kind=small}
