Sale of paintings

Kvat laws and gst laws have a lot in contradiction.

gst laws attempts to integrate all taz jurisdictions. in this the lawmaker has placed utmost importance to the concept of destination based taxation. unlike previous tax regimes now the tax jurisdiction lies with the state where the goods are ultimately consumed.

altamush can you imagine a situation where the sale is on door delivery basis(goods will be delivered when it reaches the premises of buyer) and the selller is not causing the movement of goods. i think it wont happen practically. I am not denying the legal position according to which in ex-factory sale the buyer obtains title at the premises of seller. despite that fact s. 10 extends the place of supply to the place of the buyer. section 10 shifts the base of taxation from place of transfer of title in goods to the place of actual consumption. ( to the extent known and possible).
in case of ex factory sale even when seller is not obliged to transport the goods and where the goods are transported by the buyer, why would lawmaker write those words'by the receiver' in s. 10.
the last line in s.10 includes the words 'delivered to the receiver' has only a limited significance. it is wriiten only to enable the scriber to make a distiction between BTST sale. Next subsection contains provision relating to btst sale where goods are not delivered to the buyer but to a third party. the words 'delivered to buyer' in s. 10 has only this meaning i.e., to express that in normal sale the goods are delivered to buyer and in btst sale goods are delivered to a third party at the direction of buyer.

there are innumerous judgments which are based on fallacies, prejudiced by bias and error. manytimes a cunning lawer gets an undeserving judgment in his favour. in my practice i have observed that kerala highcourt gives most number of idiosyncratic and antithetical case laws(in comparison to delhi, bombay and gujarat high courts).

here the position is well accepted by the gst department. hence leaving no ambiguity in the meaning of place of supply.

Veerandar 

That is a bit rich coming out of you.

A student claiming to be a tax consultant calling wisdom of Judges of a High Court idiosyncratic and antithetical.

Nice one.

But Kerala HC judgement is correct both in KVAT and GST. FYI the same part approached the HC in GST regime also. You can read the judgement.

And as far as destination based tax is concerned Bom HC has also given its final decision in case of intermediary where POS is place of supplier as constitutional and valid 

For more details on how GST is to be read, read my previous reply to Pankaj ji.

When one encounters a man running out of wits about leading to a common understanding through a healthy discussion all the efforts to explain such man will turn futile and he will in return receive only non-virtuous replies lacking merits.

it can be evidently seen that you have been shunning from giving any contradicting views on our propositions.

i think vipul is smart enough to decide which way to take, he would not invite unnecessary trouble by charging cgst and sgst to confront the department.

As all the risks will be transferred to seller in Delhi itself I would say POS will be Delhi.

Thanks all of you for your views and giving me direction....We are as a team should respect others view also and promote healthy discussion...

Veerandar

Your views are quite biased taking account of only destination based tax shunning all aspects of other laws and GST as well which are enforceable on that transaction.

Secondly your reasons varies with change in transactions while my reason is simple. If liability transferred delivery terminates.

So your views are based on assumptions while my views are based on legal systems

And for you AAR has merit but a HC doesn't which shows your level of intelligence and knowledge.

Good luck with your exams if you are still pursuing.

This transaction is covered in section 12(2), according to which if buyer is a registered person, POS shall be location of buyer i.e. Maharashtra, otherwise POS shall be place where goods terminates for delivering to customer i.e. delhi

 

My two cents:

This issue has always faced an issue under GST. Considering intention of law and seamless credit concept and GST law wordings therein, read with the procedure, i.e. address on record, If Maharashtra address is given (or GSTIN and address for B2B), then POS would be Maharashtra. 

Considering Delhi would defeat the purpose of indirect taxation and further the cascading concept. 

This in time would be upheld by Courts under GST. 

CA Akshay i find myself on the same line of thought as yours'. presently there are judgments that call it as intrastate sale but this position cant settle like this. i hope someday these rulings will be overturned.

further, i want you guys to think on this:
in a sale where the buyer places an order remotely asks seller to transport the goods to his place, according to sale of goods act the sale is complete when the goods are delivered to the transporter. the seller would most probably give the goods in a nearby transporter office. in this circumstance the sale is completed in the city of the seller itself. if this interpretation is to be followed then it is apparent that almost all trades in india are intrastate trade. how would one make interstate sale under such laws?

A contract metrieal purchase from Karnataka regd supplier by Tamilnadu regd recipient,he showed destination place Trivandrum in Kerala.But,this party not regd under gst,he made contract between Tamilnadu recipient.
Kerala government,may get gst benifit in this contract.Ple discuss sir.

Where the buyer asks the seller to deliver to its place and the seller agrees then it is the responsibility of the seller to deliver it to the buyer's premises. Where the transporter is engaged by the seller the transporter is the agent of the seller and therefore supply would be interstate as delivery is getting terminated at the buyer's premises.

That is a case of door delivery.
but i meant to ask for a case where the buyer does not explicitly ask for delivery upto premises but asks the seller to just transport the goods(like a FOB sale where the sellers obligation finishes when the seller hands over goods to transporter)

in a door delivery case the seller assumes the risk until goods reaches the transporter's office in the destination state or the premises(as the case may be). sofar in my experience i have witnissed that almost all sales are done on fob basis. no seller likes to assume risk after ceasing to hold custody over the goods. in all fob sales they treat it as interstate sales.

The invoices issued by the Online business firms were not follow such provision ,the destination place may their platform agencies in respective states instead of respective consumer in those states.

Here is a (youtube video) link regarding Ex-works vs FOR Destination supplies, for anyone interested to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrXIGC8iAOU