TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order. PROCEEDINGS 1. This is an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 97 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 and Uttarakhand State Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST/SGST Act) and the rules made there under filed by M/s Dry Blend Foods Pvt. Ltd., Village Chandpur, P.O.-Hempur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand-244716, (herein after referred to as the "applicant"), a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and registered with GST1N- 05AACCD8877D1ZK under the CGST Act, 2017 read with the provisions of the UGGST Act, 2017. 2. In the application dated 11.01.2022 the applicant submitted that they are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant' is seeking an advance ruling on following issues: (a) Whether Overseas Commission Agent is covered within the definition of the term 'intermediary' as provided under section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017; (b) Whether services received by applicant from the Overseas Commission Agent falls within the meaning of the term 'import of services' as provided under section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017; (c) Whether the applicant is required to pay GST on RCM basis under section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017 on commission paid to the Overseas Commission Agent. 4. At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the SGST Act are the same except for certain provisions; therefore, unless a m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017, the present application is hereby admitted. 7. Accordingly opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the applicant on 22.02.2022. Sh. Ashwarya Shanna, Advocate, on behalf of the applicant appeared for personal hearing on the said date and re-iterated the submission already made in their application. Ms. Preeti Manral, Deputy Commissioner, SGST-Dehradun, Concerned Officer from State Authority was also present during the hearing proceedings. She presented the facts and requested the authority to decide the case on merits. 8. From the record submitted by the applicant we find that applicant is registered in Uttarakhand with GSTIN bearing no. 05AACCD8877D1ZK Before proceeding in the present case, we would f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of UAE, for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023. 9. Before deciding the issues in hand, we first go through the MOU submitted by the applicant in this regard. On perusal of MOU dated 05.03.2021, the relevant portions are summarized as under: (a) The said MOU is signed between the applicant & Mr. Bobby Kapoor, a resident of UAE; (b) The supplies shall be made only on receipt of confirmed purchase orders, facilitated by Mr. Bobby Kapoor; (c) Mr. Bobby Kapoor has ample experience in providing intermediary services in international market and is expected to provide such services to represent the company before customers to be located by him in middle East and to provide product support, to arrange confirmed purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....market and the applicant wished to utilize his expertise to get confirmed purchase order from outside India and for that the applicant shall pay commission to Mr. Bobby Kapoor, as per the terms and condition of the MOU iii) On perusal of documents viz invoices, journal voucher submitted by the applicant, we find that the applicant has raised the invoices in the name of the foreign buyer in respect of goods exported and not in the name of Mr Bobby Kapoor and has paid the commission to Mr Bobby Kapoor, on agreed terms and condition. iv) In terms of legal provisions, we observe that any person, who enables the supply of goods/services between two persons, is considered as intermediary. However, where a person is providing ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med as import of service or otherwise. On perusal of section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 is relevant to the issue in hand which provides that the place of supply of the intermediary services would be the location of the supplier of such services (i.e. location of intermediary service provider). Thus we find that the condition (iii) is not satisfied as the place of supply of service is not in India. iii) Thus we observe that the services received by the applicant is out of the ambit of "import of services" in as much as the condition (iii), supra, is not satisfied in terms of section 13(8)(b) of IGST Act, 2017 as place of supply of service is out of India, since the location of Mr. Bobby Kapoor, is UAE, which is a place outside India. ....