INDIRECT TAX NEWSLETTER
Notifications / Circulars / Clarifications
1 – 6
Recent Case Laws
7 – 10
5 May 2016
Notifications / Circulars / Clarifications
In line with the new Baggage Rules of 2016; the Government of India has issued new notifications relating to imposition of customs duty and other conditions applicable on imported baggage. Accordingly, articles exceeding specified limit shall be taxable @ 35% ad valorem. It has also been notified that specified persons, after residing outside India for a particular period, can import specified items up to certain limits (INR 2,00,000 or INR 5,00,000) without payment of import duty, subject to conditions given in the notification, and beyond that limit shall be taxable @ 15% ad valorem for items given in the notification.
(Ref: Notification Nos 26 & 27/2016-Cus dated 31 March 2016)
Per the obligations under the India-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the Central Government has further reduced customs duty rates on various items when imported into India from Japan.
(Ref: Notification No 28/2016-Cus dated 31 March 2016)
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has amended the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998. The amendment, inter alia, provides that no fees shall be charged by customs officers in ports that operate on a 24X7 basis.
(Ref: Notification No 46/2016-Cus (N.T.) dated 1 April 2016)
The Central Government has imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of Normal Butanol or N-Butyl Alcohol (Tariff Item 2905 13 00) into India, originating in, or exported from European Union, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and United States of America.
(Ref: Notification No 13/2016-Cus (ADD) dated 13 April 2016)
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has introduced the definition of ‘e-commerce’ in Para 9.17A of the Foreign Trade Policy (2015-2020) for the purpose of export benefits availed by exporters under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS).
(Ref: Notification No 2/2015-2020 dated 11 April 2016)
The conditions for exemption from customs duty on parts, equipment and tools required for maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircrafts has been revamped.
(Ref: Notification Nos 29/2016-Cus dated 26 April 2016)
The Central Government has extended anti-dumping duty on imports of Barium Carbonate (Tariff Item 2836 60 00) into India, originating in, or exported from China for a further period of 5 years.
(Ref: Notification No 14/2016-Cus (ADD) dated 21 April 2016)
The Central Government has extended anti-dumping duty on imports of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy Transmission Equipment (Heading 8517) into India, originating in, or exported from China and Israel.
(Ref: Notification No 15/2016-Cus (ADD) dated 26 April 2016)
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade has amended the procedure for implementation of the track and trace system for export of pharmaceutical and drug consignments.
(Ref: Public Notice No 3/2015-2020 dated 21 April 2016)
In line with the mandate of ease of doing business, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has provided a detailed implementation of procedure for the “Single Window Integrated Declaration” mechanism. This mechanism allows importers/ exporters to file a single declaration for import/ export of goods which fall under the jurisdiction of participating government agencies.
(Ref: Circular F No 450/147/2015-Cus-IV dated 31 March 2016)
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has clarified that exemption on customs duty on fuel in the tank of an “Indian Airline” is not limited to the government carrier “Indian Airlines” but to all Indian airline operators under Notification No 151/94-Cus dated 13 July 1994.
(Ref: Instruction No F No 528/15/2016-STO (TU) Nil dated 8 April 2016)
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has relaxed the KYC norms for imports effected by courier mode. In terms of the revised norms, where proof of address is not available with the consignee, the proof of identity would be treated as sufficient compliance. However, this relaxation is available only in respect of consignments of individuals for import of documents, gifts, samples or low value dutiable consignments valuing up to INR 50,000.
(Ref: Circular No 13/2016-Cus dated 26 April 2016)
The Central Government has made the following amendments to CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR).
CENVAT credit in respect of service tax paid on assignment of right to use any natural resources shall be spread evenly over three years.
Payment of an amount equal to 6% of value of the exempted goods and 7% of value of the exempted services under Rule 6(3) shall be subject to a maximum of the sum total of opening balance and availment of credit on goods and services for that period.
Rule 7B to allow distribution of credit availed on the basis of documents mentioned in Rule 9 instead of “invoices, issued in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.”
(Ref: Notification No 23 and 24–CX dated 1 and 13 April 2016)
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has extended the time limit for obtaining registration by a jeweller to 1 July 2016. It has also provided with an option to make payment of Excise duty for the month of March, April, May along with that of June 2016.
(Ref: Circular No 1026/14/2016-CX dated 23 April 2016)
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued this circular advising adjudication of bagasse and similar other by-products or wastes as non-taxable goods in adherence to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of M/s Union of India and Ors v M/s DSCL Sugar Limited (2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX). It has also been clarified that for the purpose of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, the same shall be treated as exempted goods.
(Ref: Circular No 1027/15/2016-CX dated 25 April 2016)
The Central Government has made the following amendments to exemption Notification No 25/2012 dated 20 June 2012 and granted exemptions as under:
The services by a local authority in relation to any function entrusted to a municipality.
Services by government or local authority to another government or local authority except the services excluded by clause (a) sub-clause (i)(ii)(iii) of section 66D.
Services by government or local authority for issuance of passport, visa, driving licence, birth certificate or death certificate.
Services by government or local authority where gross amount charged does not exceed INR 5,000 except the services excluded by clause (a) sub-clause (i)(ii)(iii) of Section 66D. Also in case of continuous supply, where the amount charged per financial year does not exceed INR 5,000.
Services provided by government or a local authority by way of tolerating non-performance of a contract for which consideration in the form of fines or liquidated damages is payable to the government or the local authority under such contract.
Services by government or a local authority by ways of registration or testing, calibration, safety check or certification relating to protection or safety of workers, consumers or public at large, required under any law for the time being in force.
Services provided by government or a local authority by way of assignment of right to use natural resources to an individual farmer for the purposes of agriculture.
Services by government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution.
Services provided by government or a local authority by way of assignment of right to use any natural resource where such right to use was assigned by the government or the local authority before the 1 April 2016. The exemption would be available only to service tax payable on one time charge payable, in full upfront or in instalments, for assignment of right to use such natural resource.
Services provided by government or a local authority by way of allowing a business entity to operate as a telecom service provider or use radiofrequency spectrum during the financial year 2015-16 on payment of licence fee or spectrum user charges, as the case may be.
Services provided by government by way of deputing officers after office hours or on holidays for inspection or container stuffing or such other duties in relation to import export cargo on payment of Merchant Overtime charges (MOT).
(Ref: Notification No 22/2016 dated 13 April 2016)
The Central Government has amended Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to include interest or any other consideration as a part of taxable value of taxable service, in cases where service is provided by government or a local authority to a business entity and payment for such service is deferred.
(Ref: Notification No 23/2016 dated 13 April 2016)
The Central Government has amended Rule 7 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 to provide that in cases where the government or local authority provides any service to a business entity, the point of tax shall be the earlier of:
Any payment, part or full, in respect of such service becomes due, as specified in the invoice, bill, challan or any other document issued by the government or local authority demanding such payment; or
When payment for such services is made.
(Ref: Notification No 24/2016 dated 13 April 2016)
Value Added Tax (VAT)/ Central Sales Tax (CST)
The Government of Maharashtra has amended the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The principal change is in relation to right of set off for dealers engaged in transferring the right to use of motor vehicles. Henceforth, set off can be claimed by such dealers only to the extent of tax payable on such transfer of right to use and is required to be claimed within the period in which such right to use has been transferred by the claimant dealer.
(Ref: Notification No VAT/1516/CR 53/Taxation1 dated 1 April 2016)
The Government of Maharashtra has notified the Maharashtra Tax Laws (levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2016. This Act amends various provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The important changes are captured below:
Re-determination of tax liability as per the ‘fair market price’, where authorities are of the view that any transaction made by a dealer is at a sales price below the prescribed fair market price for commodity for a prescribed class of dealers.
A mechanism for seeking advance rulings has been introduced with effect from 1 May 2016 subject to conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant.
(Ref: Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2016)
The Government of Maharashtra has notified the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears in Disputes Act, 2016. This Act aims to reduce disputes and provide for easy closure of the same. An applicant can seek to make an application under this Act up to 30 September 2016.
(Ref: Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears in Disputes Act, 2016)
With effect from 1 April 2016, Maharashtra Government notifies MVAT (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2016, which inter alia provides:
Electronic registration of dealers and submission of Form 105 declaring manager(s) / authorized person of business; and
Every registered dealer shall submit return electronically as per procedure made available on website for the period starting from 1 April 2016 in the State of Maharashtra.
(Ref: Maharashtra Act No XV of 2016 dated 26 April 2016)
The Government of Bihar has notified the Bihar Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016. Vide the same, the upper limit of surcharge on certain goods (Schedule-IV) has been enhanced to 30% of the total tax payable by a dealer. Further, the rate of goods not specified in the Schedules has been increased from 13.5% to 14.5%.
(Ref: Bihar Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016)
The Bihar Settlement of Taxation Disputes Act, 2016 has been notified. This Act provides for closure of disputes subject to various conditions mentioned therein. The window for taking recourse under this Act is for a period of 3 months.
(Ref: Notification No L.G.-1-03/2016/68-Leg dated 7 April 2016)
The Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016 has been notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh in line with the state budget proposals. The changes include those relating to rate of tax as also statutory provisions in the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
(Ref: Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016 notified on 1 April 2016)
The Government of Delhi has amended the Form DVAT-16 and Form DVAT-17 (submission of returns). The amended forms require further details to be submitted by the dealer concerned.
(Ref: Notification No F.3(30)/Fin(Rev-I)/2015-16/dsvi/121 dated 12 April 2016)
The Government of Gujarat has introduced entry tax at notified rates on motor vehicles and goods purchased via e-commerce websites and entering the State of Gujarat.
(Ref: Notification No (GHN-18) GEA-2016-(S.3)(6)-TH dated 1 April 2016)
The Government of Gujarat has amended the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Rules, 2001. This amendment provides for requirements and compliances to be maintained by e-commerce operators.
(Ref: Notification No (GHN-19) GER-2016-S.20(4) /Th dated 1 April 2016)
In line with the state budget proposals, the Government of Madhya Pradesh has notified a slew of amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Vat Act, 2002; including those related to rate of tax.
(Ref: The Madhya Pradesh VAT (Amendment) Act, 2016 notified on 5 April 2016)
The Government of Nagaland has made it mandatory to file electronic returns with effect from 1 April 2016.
(Ref: Notification No CT/LEG/CR/128/2006 dated 29 March 2016)
The Government of Rajasthan has notified the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2016. This Act amends the (i) Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (ii) Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 (iii) Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (in Hotels and Lodging Houses) Act, 1990 (iv) Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962 and the (v) Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998.
(Ref: Rajasthan Finance Act, 2016 as notified vide Notification No F.2 (25) Vidhi/2/2016 dated 9 April 2016)
The Government of Uttarakhand has amended the Uttarakhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2008. Such amendment has been brought to include e-commerce operators by legal fiction into the ambit of the said Act.
(Ref: Uttarakhand Tax On Entry Of Goods Into Local Areas (Amendment) Act, 2016 as notified vide Notification No 108/XXXVI(3)/2016/16(1)/2016 dated 31 March 2016)
In line with the mandate of ease of doing business, the Government of Haryana has issued strict timeframes to be followed by the authorities in relation to Registration/Amendment/Cancellation Certificates under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
(Ref: Memo No 307/ST-5 dated 1 April 2016)
In the State of Chhattisgarh, ready-made garments, ready-made cotton hosiery, cotton knitted garments and ready-made nylon hosiery are exempted from levy of Entry tax for the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.
(Ref: Notification No F-10/26/2016/CT/V (53) dated 21 April 2016)
Amnesty scheme covering payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other dues under the Act, payable by a class of dealers or classes of dealers or all dealers, introduced vide revised Section 59A, by Haryana Value Added tax (Amendment) Act, 2016. Scheme to be notified later.
(Ref: Notification No Leg. 10/2016 dated 20 April 2016)
Under the Rajasthan VAT laws, security to be furnished at the time of registration now compulsorily required to be paid through e-GRAS.
(Ref: Notification No F. 16 (115) VAT/Tax/CCT/2016-17/152 dated 22 April 2016)
In a bid to promote the ease of doing business, the State of Andhra Pradesh has made it mandatory to make online payments under the AP Entry Tax on vehicles by the citizens and dealers to reduce interface between government staff and public.
(Ref: Circular No CCTs Ref No CCW/CS(1)/77/2016 dated 27 April 2016)
In the state of Goa, the period for completion of assessment for the FY 2012 – 13 has been extended by fifteen days with effect from 1 May 2016. Accordingly, all the assessments for the year 2012-13 shall be completed on or before 15 May 2016.
(Ref: Notification Order No CCT/12-2/2016/663 dated 28 April 2016)
Recent Case Laws
Madras High Court holds that substantive provisions in the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be defeated by its procedural provisions.
The issue in this case was reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) on purchases made by an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) from another EOU.
Para 6.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 provides that an EOU is eligible for reimbursement of CST on purchases made of goods manufactured in “India.’ The long title of Para 6.11, and the form to be filed by an EOU for claiming such reimbursement of CST provides the benefits only for purchases from domestic tariff area.
The Madras High Court (HC) rejected all the contentions of the Central Government, holding, inter alia that title of a provision can be read only in case of doubt and not when relevant Para 6.11© clearly mentions ‘India’ which includes an EOU. Form for refund claim is only a procedural requirement and cannot override or restrict the substantive benefit. The new Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 would show that the substantive provision has remained identical while the form has been amended to include purchases from EOU specifically. This change was only brought in to make explicit what was implicit earlier. In view of this too, the benefit of reimbursement of CST cannot be denied.
(Ref: Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited v The Union of India)
Circular indicating classification of imported goods quashed by the High Court of Calcutta.
The issue in this case related to classification of ‘Disposable Sterilized Dialyzer’ and ‘Microbarrier’. These are medical equipment, which, per the assessee, are classifiable under Tariff Item 9018 90 31 of the Customs Tariff. However, the customs authorities sought to classify ‘Disposable Sterilized Dialyzer’ and ‘Microbarrier’ in Heading 8421 instead of 9018 90 31 as medical equipment under Customs Tariff vide Circular No 19/2013-Cus (circular) dated 9 May 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
The High Court of Calcutta (HC) after a detailed examination, held that the correct classification of the goods should be under Tariff Item 9018 90 31 being more specific and hence, would override the classification suggested in the circular as it was generic.
The HC also went on to note that the circular, in effect made an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 (CTA), which is contrary to the provisions of Section 11A of the CTA which provides that only the Central Government has the power to amend the same. Further, the HC noted that the circular at best can contain executive instructions and which cannot override statutory provisions.
The HC quashed the circular as being ultra vires Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed the writ petitions filed by the assessee.
(Ref: Sanwar Agarwal v Commissioner of Customs (Port) & Ors.)
Delhi High Court quashes circular which denied benefit of preferential customs duty on import of jewellery from Indonesia under the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement.
In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business of import and trading of assorted gold jewellery from Indonesia. Such imports were sought to be exempt from customs duty by means of following the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Members States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India), Rules 2009 (Origin Rules).
Vide a circular dated 6 October 2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), the customs authorities sought to deny exemption benefit of the Origin Rules for import of gold jewellery from Indonesia and also demanded a 100% bank guarantee from the assessee in terms of another circular dated 20 January 2016. These two circulars were impugned as being ultra vires Section 151A of the Customs Act, 1962, which, inter alia, provides that no instructions, orders, and directions will be issued by the CBEC which might require an officer of customs to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner.
The Delhi High Court (HC) held that these circulars in effect reduce the scope of the exemption available for import of gold jewellery from Indonesia across the board, which is not permissible in law. The circular interferes with the discretion to be exercised by the customs officer who is performing a quasi-judicial function for conducting duty assessment which is plainly contrary to Section 151A of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act).
The HC quashed the circulars dated 6 October 2015 and 20 January 2016 as ultra vires Section 151A of the Act and unsustainable in law.
(Ref: The Bullion & Jewellers Association v Union of India)
The Mumbai Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allows CENVAT credit on capital goods supplied by principal manufacturer on lease basis for purpose of job-work manufacture.
The question before Mumbai CESTAT pertained to eligibility of CENVAT credit of capital goods supplied by a principal manufacturer for carrying out job work. Revenue submitted that Rule 4(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) clearly states that CENVAT credit in case of procurement of capital goods on lease basis, can only be allowed if the same is made from financing company. ITC Limited was not a financing company and therefore, condition of Rule 4(3) of CCR, i.e., supply by a finance company, was not complied with. According to CESTAT, supply of capital goods by a financing company or otherwise, is not significant for deciding the admissibility of CENVAT credit. So long as the capital goods were received by assessee and used in manufacture of taxable goods, credit shall be allowed even as per the normal provisions contained in CCR. The CESTAT was of the view that the decision of Bombay High Court in Modernova Plastyles Private Limited (TS-78-HC-2015(BOM)-EXC) was applicable wherein such credit was made available. It further stated that there was no dispute that capital goods so procured on lease basis were indeed used in manufacture of final product on behalf of ITC Limited and hence, credit should be made available.
(Ref: Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur v Candico (India) Limited)
The Karnataka High Court rules that a person cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for delay condonation, except in case of gross injustice.
The issue before the Karnataka High Court (HC) was that was whether writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was maintainable for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, beyond the stipulated period of 90 days.
HC was of the view that writ petition can be maintained only where the order of adjudicating authority is passed without/in excess of jurisdiction, or there is flagrant disregard of the law or there is violation of principles of natural justice.
(Ref: Phoenix Plasts Company v Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors.)
Larger bench of the Supreme Court referred to settle clash on interplay between Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning scope and purport of transaction value.
The 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) referred the question of interplay between Sections 3 & 4 (as amended with effect from July 2000) of Central Excise Act and scope & purport of “transaction value” to a larger bench. The SC was required to consider whether container charges collected from customers for transportation of gases should be taken into account for determination of value for the purpose of levy of excise duty under amended Section 4. Noting the contrary views of Coordinate Benches in Bombay Tyre International Limited and Acer Limited, SC opined that “another Coordinate Bench should not venture into the issues raised and even attempt to express any opinion on the merits of either of the views”. In case of Bombay Tyre, a 3 judges bench had observed that, “Any standard which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy…” while rejecting the appellants contention that measure is to be found by reading Section 3 with Section 4, and thus drawing the ingredients of Section 3 into exercise.
Whereas in case of Acer Limited, SC had ruled that valuation in terms of transaction value would be subject to provisions of Section 3 as also Section 4(1), thus observing, “Section 3 of the Act being the charging section, the definition of “transaction value” must be read in the text and context thereof and not dehors the same.” Accordingly, SC opined that questions referred should receive consideration by a larger bench for which purpose, SC placed the papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
(Ref: Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore & Others v Grasim Industries Limited & Others)
The Chennai Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allows CENVAT credit on health insurance subsequent to change definition of ‘Input service’ vide amendment in in 2011.
The question before Chennai CESTAT pertained to eligibility of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on insurance premium towards health insurance of employees in the factory. The CESTAT was of the view that although the exclusion of insurance service in certain events was incorporated into law with effect from 1 April 2011 the same was to be construed only in respect of insurance coverage given to employees during journey availing leave travel concession. The amendment cannot take away welfare of workers under the Factories Act, from its fold if insurance service is availed to overcome difficulties under Workmen Compensation Act, in case of hazard. Accordingly, appellant’s claim of CENVAT credit of service tax paid to avail insurance service for employees employed in factory, was held to be permissible
(Ref: FIEM Industries Limited v Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Chennai-II)
Madras High Court holds that substantive provision in the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be defeated by the procedural provisions.
The issue before Gujarat High Court (HC) was whether ‘petroleum coke’ used in the process of manufacturing cement should be treated as ‘raw material’ or as ‘fuel’, and consequently, whether input tax credit (ITC) should be reduced in terms of Section 11(3)(b)(iii) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT), which provides that in respect of fuels used in manufacture of goods, the ITC is required to be reduced by 4% of the taxable turnover of purchases of such inputs.
The assessee in this case was engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. While submitting the returns for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee claimed ITC on purchases of petroleum coke. The assessee claimed that as petroleum coke is used as a raw material, the amount of ITC would not be required to be reduced by 4%. Revenue contended otherwise, viz., that the petroleum coke is nothing but fuel.
The HC concluded that for the purpose of manufacture, the raw material should ultimately get a new identity by virtue of the manufacturing process either on its own or in conjunction or combination with other raw materials. The HC also noted that the input would not cease to be raw materials by reason alone of the fact that in the course of the chemical reactions, the ingredient is consumed or burnt up.
The HC observed that petroleum coke is used as a raw material for the manufacture of clinker and forms an ingredient thereof. Even if the petroleum coke was consumed or burnt up, it would still be a raw material as the production of the end product viz., cement depends upon its presence in the manufacturing process.
In fine, the HC observed that the petroleum coke was a raw material and the assessee was therefore not required to reduce the ITC.
(Ref: The State of Gujarat v Balram Cement Limited)
The Supreme Court holds that the movement of goods by way of imports or by way of inter-state trade, when in pursuance of the conditions and/or as an incident of the contract between the assessee and Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Limited, would be exempt from taxation under Delhi VAT law.
Dismissing the Revenue appeal, the Supreme Court (SC) held that the assessee had supplied goods i.e., transformers, switch-gears, etc. and complete electrical solution, to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited during execution of works contract, and hence, the same would be exempt from taxation under Delhi VAT law. Upholding the order passed by Delhi High Court, SC held that as such transactions were in pursuance of and incidental to the contract, these should be deemed to have taken place in course of import of goods and inter-State trade covered by Section 5(2) and Section 3(a) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, respectively.
(Ref: Commissioner, Delhi Value Added tax v ABB Limited)
For any queries please contact: [email protected]