Dismissed

MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/03/2023-24 of M/s. Ivl India Environmental R&D Private Limited

GST AAAR5 Jun 2023MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/03/2023-24

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings examined whether funds transferred by an Indian subsidiary to its Swedish parent from a MCGM contract constituted imported services liable to IGST. The Court distinguished past precedents, found IVL Sweden provided the actual support services imported by IVL India, and upheld the order demanding tax payment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected; MAAR Order upholding liability to pay IGST under reverse charge mechanism is upheld.

MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/03/2023-24 of M/s. Ivl India Environmental… — GST and Indirect Tax | GST AAAR (2023)

¶1

MAHARASHTRA APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS UNDER GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (GST)

¶2

(Constituted u's 99 of the Maharashtra Goods and Servíces Tax Act, 2917)

¶3

Order No. MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/03/2023-24 Date: oOb 2023

¶4

Before the Bench of (1) Dr. D. K. Srinivas, Member (Central Tax) (2) Shri. Rajeev Kumar Mital, Member (State Tax)

¶5

	NameandaddressoftheAppellant	Ms.IVLIndiaEnvironmentalR&D Private Limited Address: A808 and 809. Shelton Sapphire.Sectorl5andCBDBelapur. NaviMumbai.Maharashtra-400614.
2	GSTIN/Useridoftheappellant	274AFCI758M1Z5
3	Clausets)ofsub-section(2)of Section97underwhichquestion(s) areTaised	(e)determinationoftheliabilitytopay taxonanygoodsorservicesorboth:
4	DateofPersonalHearing	21.03.2023
	PresentfortheAppellant	1.Shri.Badrinath. Advocate 2.Shri.VarunGarg.CA 3.Shri.Gurunath.CA
6	DetailsofAppeal	AppealNo.MAHGST-AAAR/10/2022 23dated05.01.2023againstMaharashtra AdvanceRulingNo.GST-ARA 50/2020-21/B-108 dated 01.12.2022
	Jurisdictional officer officer/concerned	TheAssistantCommissioner.Division-1. CGST&C.Ex.Belapur.

¶6

(Proceedings under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and

¶7

Section 101 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)

¶8

At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central GST Act. 207 and the Maharashtra GST Act. 2017 are same except for certain provisions. Therefore. unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central GST Act. 2017 would also mean a reference to the same provisions under Maharashtra GST Act. 2017.

¶9

The present^{appealhasbeenfiledunderSection100oftheCentralGSTAct.20!7} (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act') read with Section 100 of the Maharashtra

¶10

GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the MGST Act') by M/s. IVL India

¶11

Environmental R&D Private Limited having Address at A808 and 809. Shelton Sapphire.

¶12

1 Page

¶13

Sector 1 5^{and CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai,Maharashtra-400614 (hereinafter referred to} as the^{Appellant') againsttheadvanceRuling No.GST-ARA-50 2020-21 B-108 dated} 0!.12.2022

¶14

BRIEF FACTS

¶15

JVL^{indiaEnvironmenta!R&DPrivateLimited(IVLIndia'orTheAppellant') isa} company^{incorporated under thelaws of India andis awholly owned subsidiary of IVL} Swedish^{EnvironmentalResearchInstituteLimited('IVLSweden')a foreigncompany} incorporated^{under thelawsof Sweden.TheMunicipalCorporationof Greater Mumbai} (MCGM') is the^{govermingcivicbodyofMumbaiundertheBombayMunicipal} Corporation Act, I888.

¶16

IVL^{Sweden applicdforthebidforalltheprojectsinvitedbyMCGMforthe contract of} "Project^{ManagementConsultancySeices" forfourlocationswhichareVersova and} Malad^{intluentPumping StationunderMSDP Stage-il,Mithi River Rejuvenation Project} TPackaget. tt.^{#tt ttBia WuIl under MSDPStage-I,WorliWwTFunder} I! on^{thebasisoftheircredentials,workexperienceandvarious}

¶17

MSDP Stagr certitivations^{rveived fromdifferent government organizations as requiredinthe bidding}

¶18

cligibility ntera

¶19

MCGM^{successtullsawarded the tender for Project ManagementConsultancServices'.}

¶20

for the^{follow ing projects toIVLSweden with the respective contractamounts:}

¶21

Contract Value (Rs.)
Location/Project Name
158.175.000
Versova and Malad
167.220.000
Mithi River
633.600.000
Worli
341,530,000
Bandra
1,500,525.000
Total

¶22

The^{Appcllantwas incorporatedinIndiaby IVLSweden,in order to oblige thefollow ing} terms and^{conditions of thebiddingeligibilitycriterialaidoutbyMCGMinthetender}

¶23

docunents, where:

¶24

VLSweden should^{incorporate a Whollyowned subsidiuryentityinIndia}

¶25

Parent^{companyshould have experience in providing PMC Services.}

¶26

2 Page

¶27

Contract Ageement^{tobesignedby bothSubsidiaryandParent/sister Company,} wher the^{contractisawardedtoasubsidiarybasedonthecredentialsofthe} purent sster copny,

¶28

Curene ot^{thepy mentshall beIndianRupces(INR)onlyandbiddersshould}

¶29

quote the value in INR only.

¶30

Bidder to provide^{details of PANcard, Bank details & GST Numbers to MCGMin}

¶31

onder to^{egister and obtainVendor code.} Establish a bach^{otticeinMumbai NaviMumbaianda site office atthesite.}

¶32

Bidder to obtain^{anlmportLicense,inordertoimportanyrawmaterial,if any}

¶33

equird to tultil the contractual obligation.

¶34

Theratter, in^{conmpliancewiththeconditionslaidoutinthetenderdocument,the} Appellant and |VL^{Sweden executed a contract withMCGM governing the scopeofwork,} payment teis^{andgeneral conditionsof the contract.}

¶35

ln this rgard.,^{IVL Indiaincompliancewiththecontract,issuesinvoicestoMCGMin} INR, for both, the^{workdonebyIVI lndiaandlIVLSweden.Subsequently, onreceipt of} money tom^{MCGM,IVL lndiatransterstolVLSveden,monevfortheportionof work} done and^{deliveredbvlVLSwedentoMCGMintermsofthe contracts.}

¶36

In this regard.^{theAppellanthadfiledanapplicationforadvancerulingonthefollowing} matters:

¶37

Question: In the ligh^{of Section 97ofthe Central Goods annd ServicesTax Act,2017 (in} Maharashtra Goods and^{ServicesTarAct,2017("MGST}

¶38

short CGST^{Act") andthe} proceeds by the^{IWL India}

¶39

tet "). the^{questioniswhethermereransferofmoneta} Enironmnental R&D^{PITLtd(hereinafierreferred to as'the Applicant' or"IVLIndia")} to !lI Suedish^{Ewironmental Research bnstitute Limted hereinafterreferred to as"IVL} Sweden), without underlving import of service will be liable for pavment of lntegrated

¶40

Goods and^{Service Tarunder reversechargemechanisnunderentrno.lofNotification} I0 2017-^{IGST Rate)dated Jne 28,2017.}

¶41

The^{learnedAuthorityforAdvanceRuling(hereinafter referredtoas"LAAR")hadcalled} for a personal^{hearingandtheauthorizedrepresentativesof theAppellantattendedthe} personal hearing on^{variousoccasions and explainedthematterin detail.}

¶42

3|Page

¶43

|1. On scrutiny^{of the documents,theLAARhaspronounced theAdvanceRulingvideorder} No.GST-ARA-50/2020-21/B-108 dated 01.12.2022 received by the Appellant on 07.12.2022 as follows:

¶44

In reference^{toQuestionabove,theLAARhasconcluded that,thetransferofmonetary} proceeds by the^{Applicantto IVLSweden,will beliable for paymentofIntegrated Goods} and Service^{TaxunderreversechargemechanismunderEntry} o.I of^Notification 10/2017 -IGST (Rate) dated June 28, 2017.

¶45

Aggrieved^{bythesaidorder of thelearnedAuthorityof Advancerulings(theLAARfor} brevity) in Maharashtra,^{theAppellanthaspreferred thisappeal beforetheAppellate}

¶46

Authority for Advance^{Ruling,Maharashtra,onthefollowinggrounds:}

¶47

Grounds of Appeal

¶48

That the^{LAAR hasfailedtoappreciatetherelevantfactsandsubmissionsmadeinthe} instant case and^{hasconcludedincontrarytothefactsof thecaseinthesaidAdvance}

¶49

Ruling order dated 01.12.2022.

¶50

That the^{LAARhasgrosslyerredbynotconsideringandappreciatingthesubmissions} made by the^{Appellant duringthecourse of proceedings.}

¶51

That in^{respectof theaboveQuestion soughtbeforeAuthorityforAdvanceRulingthe}

¶52

following are our^{detailed submissions:}

¶53

That the^{tender has been awarded toIVLSweden:}

¶54

16.1 That^{thecontractfor*ProjectManagementConsultancyServices"invitedbyMCGM} was awarded^{toIVLSweden, based onits owntechnical and financial capabilities, which} is evident from the following:

¶55

The bid for^{thetendersissuedbyMCGMwasmadebyIVLSwedenbysubmitting} the financial^{andtechnicalproposalsinits ownname.}

¶56

The letter of^{acceptance(LOA) isawardedbyMCGMtoIVLSweden,accepting} the offer^{madebyIVLSwedeninthestandingcommitteemeetingheldinthis}

¶57

regard. The bank^{guarantee as requiredin the tender document isissued by Induslnd Bank}

¶58

mority lor. to MCGM^{on behalf of IVLSweden.}

¶59

4|Page

¶60

MCGM relied on valid ISO 9001 certificate, minimum existence criterial of 10 years and other qualification of IVL Sweden in evaluation of the bid and awarding the tender to IVL Sweden.

¶61

16.2 That IVL India was incorporated only to satisfy the instructions listed out in the Letter of Acceptance" awarded to IVL Sweden and other conditions laid down in the tender document.

¶62

16.3 That the tender document stipulates that payment currency for the contract will be INR and also stated that MCGM under any circumstances will not relax the terms of payment and will not consider any alternative terms of payment. Hence, IVL India was made responsible for raising the invoice. collecting the monies for the same with MCGM, including for the work done by IVL Sweden and later transfer the monies to IVL Sweden for the services provided by IVL. Sweden to MCGM.

¶63

16.4 Further, MCGM was always aware that the actual service provider or in other words the person who has the expertise to provide Project Management Service' is IVL Sweden and |VL India was acting as a conduit between IVL Sweden and MCGM for the limited

¶64

purpose ot invoicing and receiving the payments.

¶65

16.5 IVL India is incorporated for the sake of satisfying the condition of MCGM. Further. IVL India does not receive any services from IVL Sweden and the activities undertaken

¶66

by the IVL Sweden satisfy all of the aforesaid conditions as explained below: IVL 0ndia was incorporated in India merely for the purpose of obtaining the contract from MCGM.

¶67

IVL Sweden has the necessary expertise to provide the 'Project Management Service' in its own capacity.

¶68

The Letter of Acceptance is awarded to IVL Sweden on his own credentials/expertise. Also. as mandated by MCGM. both IVL India and IVL Sweden have jointly signed the contract with MCGM.

¶69

16.6 Therefore, it is evident that IVL India is not receiving any services from IVL Sweden. IVL Sweden is providing services to the ultimate recipient i.e. MCGM.

¶70

l6.7 Hence. in the absence of the underlving service being provided by |VL Sweden to IVL India -

¶71

$Page

¶72

The question of^{payingIGSTunderreversechargeinthehandsof IVLIndiadoesnot} arise:

¶73

The question of^{evaluatingapplicabilityof para4 of Schedule1 totheCGSTActdoes} not arise.

¶74

16.8 In light of the^{discussion,itisevidentthatservicestoMCGMisprovidedbyIVL} Sweden. However, to obligate with the terms and conditions of the bidding documents, eligibility criteria^{specifiedthereinandvariousclausesof theGeneralconditionstothe} contract, IVL Sweden had to, mandatorily incorporate an Indian entity.

¶75

l6.9 Therefore,^{itisimperativetonotethatwhiletheprojectsareawardedtoIVLSwedenon} the basis of the credentials of IVL Sweden, for the purposes of administrative convenience, a special purpose vehicle is established in the name and style ofIVL India though the work is^{predominantlyexecutedbyIVLSweden.}

¶76

16.10The relevant clauses and conditions of the btdding docuents, eligibitity criteria and general conditions^{to the contract whichproves thatincorporationofan Indian entity was} indispensable to execute^{thisprojectanditwouldhavebeenimpossiblefora foreign} entity to execute^{this project without anIndian entity.}

¶77

16.11 Thev have^{also enumerated certain factsof the case whichproves that IVL India ismerely} a conduit for administrative purpose.

¶78

a) Letter of^{Award (LoA) to IVL Sweden:} The LOA^{hasbeenawardedtotheSwedishCompany.Thismeansthattheactual} consultant to this^{contractisIVLSweden.Hence.thebenefitoftheexemption} notification shall^{reachto IVLSweden.}

¶79

b) Specific^{requirement of incorporation of anIndian entity inthe LoA:} In the Letter^{of Award,MCGMhasspecificallymadeitmandatoryforIVLSwedento} incorporate a^{companyundertheIndianCompaniesactalongwithPAN,GST} registration and other statutory details.

¶80

c Credentials and work^{experience of IVL Sweden:} The bidding^{criteria intheMCGMbiddingdocumentsspecificallymentioncertain} minimum criteria^{withoutwhich,thecontractshallnotbeawarded.The contract toIVL} Sweden has been^{awardedsolely onthebasis of thecredentials andwork experience of}

¶81

6|Page

¶82

IVL SWeden. This^{further reiterates the fact thatthemainconsultantof this contractis} IVL Sweden^{andnot IVLIndia.Hence,thebenefit of the exemption notification should} also reach^{to IVL Sweden.}

¶83

BG by IVL Sweden: d) As per the^{clause number 8 "Mode of Payment" of thebidding documents,thebidder is} required to submit an^{advance bank guarantee of 10%% to claim the advance payment.IVL} Sweden^{furnished/submittedthe advancebank guarantee to MCGMin order tofulfil the} requirement and claim^{theadvancepayment.Theultimateresponsibilityofthe} performance of this^{contract shallremainwithIVLSweden,Thisalso construes thatthe} main consultant to^{thiscontractisIVLSweden.}

¶84

Work to be performed by IVL Sweden: e) The project^{hasbeengrantedonthecredentials,workexperienceandvarious} certifications from^{differentorganizations of IVLSwedenandhence, ultimateexecution} also lies with IVL^{Sweden, eitherby IVLIndia or by executing thepartofcontract itself.} Hence, the^{abovefactmeans that the main consultant to this contractisIVLSweden.}

¶85

Ultimate beneficiary is IVL Sweden:

¶86

The entire^{obligationof thecontract,performanceof thecontractandresponsibilityof} the contract^{lieswithIVLSwedenwhichmeansthattheultimate beneficiaryof the} contract and the^{primaryconsultanttoMCGMisIVLSweden.Itisjusttomeetthe} obligations of the^{contractandtheBiddingqualification,thatIVLSwedenhadto} incorporate an Indian entity.

¶87

¶88

Legal recourse^{fornon-performance of contract isagainst IVLSweden:}

¶89

The legal recourse^{inrespect of this contractforproject management service withMCGM} in case of any failure in carrying out, observe or performance or any of the said obligations, duties, undertaking, covenants and conditions under the contract lies with IVL Sweden and the same is evidenced by:

¶90

a. Indemnity bond issued by IVL Sweden to MCGM declaring that the work allotted to IVL Sweden will be completed and any short-comings in this regard will be made-good by IVL Sweden.

¶91

b. Parent Company Guarantee given by IVL Sweden to MCGM guarantee ing the due perfornance of contract and indemnify ing for any loss incurred by MCGM on account of this contract.

¶92

7Page

¶93

prevalent in^{the PetroleumIndustry fordeveloping,}

¶94

18.^Sinmilar exploring^{arrangements andproducing are ofOil &Gas wherein it isheldthatthere are no services} provided^{between the participants, iter se:}

¶95

18.1 The^{Appellant submits that the above arrangement can be compared to the how multiple} entities^{participateinbidsandexecutetheworkthereonintheprojectsrelatingto} business of^{developing,exploringandproducingoil andgaswherevariousindustry} participants^{forma consortiumby entering into a �Productionsharingcontractand} collectively^{enterintothecontract.Onepartyfromsuchconsortiumplaystheroleof} leader/holder and^{is responsible for entering the contract with the government receiving} all^{payments and distributing the same to the other participants in the consortium.}

¶96

18.2^{Contractually, while eachof the entitieswill be individually responsible for their part of} the^{contract, the onus and responsibility for billing and collection as a consortiumwill be}

¶97

that of^{the "leader.}

¶98

18.3^{Atthis juncture, referenceisdrawntoCESTAT rulinginthecaseof-B.G.} EXPLORATION&^{PRODUCTION INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF} CGST &^{CEX.,NAVIMUMBAI-2021(10) TMI306-CESTATMUMBAI.} Considering the^{same analogy, here IVL India raises the invoiceand collects the payment} from^{MCGM, further transfers monies to IVL Sweden for the services provided byIVL} Sweden to^{MCGMandactsasconduitbetweenIVLSwedenandMCGM.This} arrangement can^{be comparable with the operations in the petroleum industry and hence} it can^{be said that, there is no service inter se and hence not liable to GST.}

¶99

19.^{TheProject ManagementServicesprovidedtoMCGMiswholly exemptunder} Serial^{No. 3 of Notification No.12/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, such} exemption^{should be extended to all consultants to the contract:}

¶100

19.1^{The Appellant submits that, theproject management services supplied to the MCGM is} wholly^{exempt underserial No.3ofNotification No.12/2017 -Central Tax(Rate) dated} 28.06.2017.^{Here,it is important to note that the ultimate services provided to recipient} (MCGM) is^{exempt. GiventhatMCGMisa localauthorityandthesubjectservices} (being^{project management services which are wholly and purely services) fall within}

¶101

A^{Article243G of the Constitution of India and the same is wholly exempt from GST.}

¶102

8|Page

¶103

19.2 The Leamed Authority of Advance Ruling (LAAR) has wrongly observed that there is transfer of expertise from IVL Sweden to IVL India in order to execute the contract and thereby concluding that. there is supply of serice or goods or both. between IVL Sweden and IVL India. The LAAR has drawn a contrary inference where it states that IVL 0ndia is receiving the serices from IVL Sweder, whereas in fact and in terms of the contract. it is both. IVL Sweden and IVL India. together are executing the work in terms of the contract. for the ultimate recipient ie. MCGM. The Appellant contends that the LAAR has grossly misunderstood the facts of the arrangement and passed an order on the basis of these misunderstood facts and has not made any statements or distinguished on the iegal grounds or content ions taken in the advance ruling application and the submission made thereof.

¶104

19.3 They further contended that without prejudice to the above, assuming arguendo that IVI.

¶105

Sweden is providing ervice through IVI Ind1a, IVI India would become the main consultant and I\ 1 Sweden ould be scondary consultant en the aangement between MCGM i mployer, INI Inda (Main (Consultant) and IVi. Swcden (Secondary Consultant). They further contended that cven in such scenario the cxemption given to

¶106

the main consultant should e cxtended to the sccondary consultant as well.

¶107

194 Thcy have cited the follow ing case laws to support their contention:

¶108

Ballset Entertainment P. Ltd. ls Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, reportedat 2018 10, G.S T.L 32Tri-Del):

¶109

Ms QU4TRO RAIL TECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED - 2019 (10) TMI I34 4UTHORITY FOR ADAVCE RULING, KARNATAK4:

¶110

Supreme Court Judgment in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS, VERSUS LARSEN & TOURBO LTD. & ORS. - 2008 (8) TMI 21:

¶111

PERSONAL HEARING

¶112

20 The personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 21.03.2023 which was atended by Shri Badr1nath. I awyer, Shri Varun (iarg. CA and Shri Gurunath, CA on behalf of the Agpelant During the personal hearing the Appellant reiterated their carlier submissions made while filing the Appeal under consideration.

¶113

Additional Submissions tiled by the Appellant

¶114

1. They also^{filedan additional subissions datcd10.04.2023whereintheyhavesubmitted} documents such as^{copyof agreementexecutedbetweenIVLIndíaandIVLSweden.} M/s. IVL India,^{Invoice copyraisedbyM/s.}

¶115

copy of debit note issued by^IVLSwedento

¶116

IVL India to Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Discussions and Findings

¶117

We have gone^{throughthe entirefactsof thecase,allthedocumentsplacedonrecordas} well as all the written and oral submissions made by the Appellant. We have also

¶118

examined the impugned MAAR order whercin it has been held that the Appellant will be Iiable to pay IGST under reverse charge mechanism under Entry No.1 of Notification 10/2017 � lGST (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 on the amount paid to IVL Sweden against the receipt of support services in the form of consultancy.

¶119

The main contentions put forth by the Appellant in their favour are as under:

¶120

23-+ That- the -tender for the praject management consultancy of the projects under question was awarded to IVL Sweden by MCGM on the basis of their credentials, work experience, and various certification received from different government organisation;

¶121

23.2 That the Letter of Acceptance was also issued by MCGM in the favour of IVL Sweden:

¶122

23.3 However, the contract for the said PMC services to be provided to MCGM have been signed jointly by the Appellant, i.e., IVL India, IVL Sweden and the recipient MCGM as per the mandatory requirement of the bidding eligibility criteria documents issued by MCGM in respect of the subject projects which stipulates that the contract can only be executed by the wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign entity who has been awarded the tender under consideration.

¶123

23.4 That in compliance to the aforesaid condition, IVL India was incorporated by IVL Sweden under the Indian laws for the purpose of execution of the PMC contract.

¶124

2.3.5 That even though the contract was executed jointly by the Appellant, IVL Sweden and the MCGM, the ultimate responsibilities for the performance and execution of the works lie with IVL Sweden as the tender under question was awarded to IVL Sweden on the basis of their credentials, work experience and various certifications awarded by different government organisations.

¶125

10|Page

¶126

23.6 That the IVL Sweden has provided Bank Guarantee and Parent Company Guarantee/ undertaking to the MCGM for the PMC tasks to be carried out by the Appellant in relation to the subject projects. 23.7 That the invoices for the PMC services rendered to MCGM are raised by the Appellant and the payment for the said services are also made by MCGM to the Appellant only in Indian Rupees, which are then transferred to IVL Sweden. 24. Now, having regard to the above facts of the case, the impugned MAAR Order and the submissions made by the Appellant, the moot issue before us is as under:

¶127

() Who is the service provider in so far as the transactions under question are concerned? That is, who is providing the consultancy services to MCGM as per the contract entered

¶128

with MCGM with respect to the projects under question? 25. Now, we proceed to examine the aforesaid issue we proceed to examine the aforesaid issue proceed to examine the aforesaid issue to examine the aforesaid issue examine the aforesaid issue the aforesaid issue aforesaid issue issue in the the context

¶129

Now, we proceed to examine the aforesaid issue we proceed to examine the aforesaid issue proceed to examine the aforesaid issue to examine the aforesaid issue examine the aforesaid issue the aforesaid issue aforesaid issue issue in the the context of the transactional events envisaged under the subject contract. On perusal of the subject contract entered by the Appellant, IVL Sweden and MCGM, it is conspicuous that Appellant, i.e., IVL India, is being termed as theEonstuBtant"efthe-subjeet prejects and VL Sweden has beentermed

¶130

as the Parent Company. Further, the said contract also provides that the Commissioner would pay to the consultant, i.e. IVL India, the contract fee amount, in consideration for the work carried out by them. Thus, in view of the above, it is adequately clear that IVL India is providing services to MCGM, and accordingly raising invoices on MCGM for receiving the payment^{agreeduponinthesubjectcontract.WefurtherfindthatIVL} Sweden is acting as^{a guarantorinthisentirearrangementwhichisevidentfromthe} stipulations/covenants provided in the documents, such as Bank Guarantee, Parent Company^{Guarantee/UndertakingwhichclearlyindicatethattheentirePMCworkis} being carried out by^{theAppellant,i.e.,IVLIndia.Thesameisalsoevidentbytheterm} PMC (Project^{ManagementConsultancy)usedfortheAppellantinParentcompany} Guarantee/undertaking.

¶131

Further. it is observed^{thatthoughaspertheAgreemententeredbytheAppellantand} IVL Sweden with^{MCGM, and theParent company Guarantee /undertaking entered with} MCGM, the Appellant^{hasbeen appointed as the PMC (Project Management Consultant)} while IVL Sweden^{astheGuarantorforthecompletionof thesubjectprojects,thereis} no doubt about the^{factthattheentireprojectmanagementworkiscarriedoutbythe} Appellant with the help of IVL Sweden which has got all the expertise, work experience and resources^{tomanagesuchprojects.In other words.itcanbesaidthatwithoutthe} services of IVL Sweden,^{itwouldnothavebeenpossiblefortheAppellanttobagthe}

¶132

11 |Page

¶133

contract from MCGM to carry out project management consultancy work of such measures. In fact, the contract has been awarded to the Appellant based on the credentials and work experience of IVL Sweden. The aforesaid observations are also supported by the Appellant' contentions wherein it has been contended that all the responsibility of the performance of the work lie with IVL Sweden as IVL Sweden have got all the expertise and work experience to handle such massive projects. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the Appellant is availing support services from IVL Sweden to carry out the required PMC work as per the contract entered with MCGM.

¶134

Now, we proceed to examine place of supply of the aforesaid services received by the Appellant from IVL Sweden. Since in this case the recipient of services is located in India and supplier of the services, namely, IVL Sweden, is located abroad, therefore, Section 13 of IGST Act, 2017 will be applicable to determine the place of supply. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is observed that the default provisions of Section 13(2) wilIl cover the present case as the same does not fit under any of the remaining provisions

¶135

ranging frOm-sub-seetien (3) te- sub-seetien-f9}of seetion 13 ofthe tGST Aet, 2017. Section 13(2) is being reproduced herein under:

¶136

(2) The place of supply of services except the services specified in sub-sections (3) to (13) shall be the location of the recipient of 'services:

¶137

Provided that where the location of the recipient of services is not available in the ordinary corse of business, the place of supply shall be the location of the supplier of services. 28. Thus, on perusal of the above provisions, it is observed that the place of supply of services the present case will be the location of recipient of services, i.e., India.

¶138

Now, we set out to determine as to whether the support services received by the Appellant being located in India and supplier of services, namely, IVL Sweden, located outside India, can be construed as import of services. To determine this issue, we would like to refer to section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017, which is being reproduced herein under:

¶139

(11) Import of services" means the supply of any service, where

¶140

() The supplier of service is located outside India; (ii) The recipient recipient of service is located in India; and is located in India; and located in India; and in India; and India; and and

¶141

The recipient recipient of service is located in India; and is located in India; and located in India; and in India; and India; and and The place of supply of service is in India;

¶142

12 | P age

¶143

Thus, on perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the said support services received by the Appellant from IVL Sweden will come under the ambit of import of services as the said services fulfill all the criteria of the import of services.

¶144

Once it has been established that service under question is import of services, the same will be liable for payment of IGST at the hands of the recipient of services in terms entry I of the Notification No. 10/2017-1.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

¶145

Now, we proceed to examine the case laws relied upon by the Appellant in their defense. The same are enumerated as under:

¶146

(1) B.G. EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CEX., NAVIMUMBAI- 2021 (10) TMI 306 -CESTAT MUMBAI

¶147

(ii) Ballset Entertainment P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, reported at 2018 (10) G.S. T.L. 372 (Tri-Del.)

¶148

(ii) Ms^{QUATRORAILTECHSOLUTIONSLIMITED-2019(10)TMI1134-} AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA

¶149

(iv) STATE OF^{ANDHRA PRADESH& ORS.VERSUSLARSEN& TOURBO}

¶150

LTD. & ORS. � 2008 (8) TMI 21

¶151

On perusal of^{theaforementionedcaselaws,itisobserved that thefactsof theaforesaid} cases are entirely^{differentfromthefactsof thecaseunderconsideration.Hence,itis} concluded that all^{thecaselawsreliedupontheAppellantintheirdefenseareclearly} distinguishable, and^{therefore,notapplicableinthepresent case.}

¶152

Thus, in view of^{the above discussions andfindings, wepassthefollowingorder:} Order

¶153

We, hereby,^{upholdtheMAAROrderNo.GST-ARA-50/2020-21/B-108dated} 01.12.2022 vide which^{ithasbeenheldthatthetransferofmonetaryproceedsbythe} Applicant to IVL^{Sweden,will beliableforpaymentof IntegratedGoodsandService} Tax under^{reverse charge mechanismunder Entry No.1ofNotification10/2017 -IGST} (Rate) dated^{June 28,2017. Thus,the appeal filedby the Appellant ishereby rejected.}

¶154

(RAJEEV KÙM¬RMÍTAL)
MEMBERJ

¶155

(Dr. D.K. SRINIVAS) MEMBER

¶156

13 | Page

MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/03/2023-24 of M/s. Ivl India Environmental R&D Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MAH/AAAR/DS-RM/03/2023-24 of M/s. Ivl India Environmental R&D Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases