Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2022 (4) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1087 - AAR - GSTSupply or not - supply of goods or not - transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two GST registrations/ distinct persons - merger between distinct persons - transfer of business as going concern or not - transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two GST registrations/ distinct persons would constitute ‘supply of services’ or not - applicability of SI. No. 2 of Notification no. 12/2017-C.T. (R) dated 28.06.2017 - transfer of unutilized credit balance. Whether the transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two GST registrations/ distinct persons would constitute ‘supply’ under the GST law? - HELD THAT:- As per Sr. No. 2 of Schedule I to the CGST Act, 2017, ‘supply of goods or services or both between related persons or between distinct persons as specified in section 25 of CGST Act, 2017, when made in the course or furtherance of business shall be treated as supply, even if made without consideration’ - Section 7(1A) of amended CGST Act 2017, mentioned as above, prescribes that, certain activities or transactions constitute a supply in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), they shall be treated either as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II - thus, there is a rendering of ‘supply’ in the subject case. Whether the transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two GST registrations/ distinct persons would constitute ‘supply of goods’ under the GST law? - Whether the transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two GST registrations/ distinct persons would constitute ‘supply of services’ under the GST law? - HELD THAT:- Change in constitution of the business is essential otherwise, it cannot be said that there is transfer of business as a going concern - The concept of ‘distinct persons’ has been introduced under GST law wherein the establishments of a person with separate registrations within the same State/UT are considered as distinct person”. In the subject case, M/s Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Nagpur and M/s Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Akola, as units are holders of the same PAN and they are merely distinct persons. Hence, the case at hand doesn’t qualify to be a “going concern to another person” as units are holders of the same PAN and they are merely distinct persons - the provisions of Para 4 (c) of Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017 do not apply in this case. Therefore, the impugned supply will be treated only as supply of goods and therefore there is no supply of services in the instant case. Whether merger between distinct persons would qualify as ‘transfer of business as going concern’ under the purview of GST Law? - HELD THAT:- The question raised by the applicant is not covered under the provisions of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 - this question not answered. In case the Applicant merges the business of Akola registration, then can the Applicant claim credit balance appearing in Akola registration via Form GST ITC 02A in Nagpur registration? - HELD THAT:- The question is not admitted, hence not answered. If the transaction qualifies as ‘supply of services’, whether the said transaction would get covered under SI. No. 2 of the Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rated) dated 28 June 2017, and therefore not liable to GST? - HELD THAT:- The impugned transaction is not a supply of services and therefore this question is not taken up for discussion and hence not answered.
|