1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, 2017 – Determination of Place of Supply in respect of supply of goods - Demand CGST and SGST in addition to the IGST already paid on inter-State supplies - The demand is based premise that the petitioner had wrongly paid IGST instead of CGST and SGST on supply of goods to its dealers - Whether the place of supply should be determined based on the terms of the dealership agreement and invoices which indicated transfer of title at the factory, or based on Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act which provides that the place of supply is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient – HELD - As per Section 10(1)(a) of IGST Act, the place of supply of goods involving movement of goods shall be the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier. The movement of the goods is said to be terminated only when the goods reach the destination for the purpose of enabling the recipient to take delivery not when the goods are handed over to the ‘common carrier’ - The respondents have erred in relying upon the Sample Dealership Agreement and the Tax Invoices in order to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had lost title over the goods in question upon handing over the goods to the common carrier and consequently, the petitioner was not was not liable to pay IGST - In the instant case, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had not handed over the goods to the common carrier for the purpose of delivery to the ultimate destination, the liability to pay IGST under Section 10(1)(a) would arise only upon the movement of the goods terminating for delivery to the recipient at various places outside the State. Undisputedly the supply of goods is inter-State supply and not intra-State supply so as to attract CGST and SGST as contented by the respondents - Since the supply in the present case was inter-State, the petitioner is liable to pay IGST and not CGST and SGST. The petitioner had already paid IGST, including on the freight charges, and requiring payment of CGST and SGST would amount to double taxation - The impugned SCN seeking payment CGST and SGST on the subject supply of goods is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act and the same is quashed – The writ petition is partly allowed by remand
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?