The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling stated that the place of supply of service towards which the incentive obtained will be outside India to draw the purpose of Export u/s 2(6) of IGST,2017.
The appellant would be a GST enrolled individual in Maharashtra and is a reseller of Intel products which they intended via several Distributors of Intel Inside US LLC (IIU) have inserted in the agreement through IIUL beneath the Intel Authorized Components Supplier Program (IACSP) for a non-binding Plan of Record Target (POR Target) where the petitioner would earn some incentives as a percentage of performance to quarterly goal on qualified Intel products.
The petitioner mentioned that the incentives obtained are after the procurement of the goods and these discounts are linked to the invoices, thus they would not be recognized under a taxable supply of any product and availed that the same supply will be entitled as an export service mentioned beneath sec 2(6) of the IGST act.
Read Also: MH AAR: GST Exemption on Income from Residential Flat Lease
The petitioner lived in India and the recipient is located outside India, hence drawing towards the conditions of the export of service is satisfied in the transaction. The same was mentioned through the appellant that the transaction was exported and availed zero-rated supplies.
The petitioner’s head sees that beneath section 13 (3) (a) the services provided for the goods are needed to be made physically available through the recipient of the services to the supplier of services, or to the individual acting on the grounds of the supplier of the services to furnish the services, the head viewed that the marketing services are given for goods which are made physically available through the recipient of the services to the supplier of marketing services to furnish the services.
Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consists of Shri. Rajiv Magoo, Member Central Tax and Shri. T. R. Ramnani, Member State Tax, sees that the place of provision of services is the location of the applicant who was the supplier of services that were in India and ruled that the impugned supply would not entitle as export of services under section 13 (3) (a).
