GST council for advance rulings (Maharashtra) has not accepted the application as this was not furnished through the supplier of the goods or services however through the recipient. Another concern is that it is relevant to the supply which previously has been finished as on the application date and not a supply that was undergone or urged to get it.
Read Also: No Need GST EWB When Supplying Only Services Without Goods
In this case, a Mumbai-based private company USV Pvt Ltd underwent an assignment on 30th Nov 2019 with Novartis AG, a Switzerland-based pharma company. Subsequently, it agreed towards the permanent transfer of the trademark rights concerned to the Indian territory for Jalra and Jalra M.
10th Dec 2019 will be the valid date of transfer or the date of receipt of the complete consideration through the Swiss company USV Pvt Ltd, made a complete payment in 2 installments as per the mentioned date.
Application is furnished by him with AAR as if the operation of transfer of the enrolled trademarks through the Novartis AG on its own was a supply of goods or whether it is the supply of services? The other query is the law sought and it arrived through the first one.
AAR directed that there are 2 situations that are to be furnished to make the AAR application: the first query is the undergoing supply relations through the applicant and the other one must be the supply of goods and service relations or dual seeks to get executed or urged to be effective through the petitioner.
The first condition does not get fulfilled in the case of Novartis AG who was executing the supply. The other is that the effective transfer date of the trademark was 10th Dec 2019 in which the application gets furnished on 16th Jan 2020. Hence, upon the date of furnishing the supply had previously ended.
