Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

August 2024

Part A | Goods and Services Tax

By Puloma Dalal | Jayesh Gogri | Mandar Telang, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 9 mins

HIGH COURT

33 AU Finja Jewels vs. Assistant Commissioner Div. V CGST and Cx.

[2024] 164 taxmann.com 278 (Bombay)

Dated 21st June, 2024

Where the invoice issued to the customer indicates the gross value of the jewellery and also shows a reduction in respect of the gold supplied by the customer free of cost, the value as per GST invoice for the purpose of computing refund should be the gross value and the value of gold supplied free of cost can be treated as a payment in advance.

FACTS

Petitioner is a jewellery processor and manufacturer of jewellery and in the course of his business, imports gold and exports gold jewellery in accordance with the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India. The issue that arises in this petition is, what is the value of the goods that have to be considered while working out the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) to be sanctioned? The FOB value as per the invoice was USD 2,24,846.75. However, the net realisable value after considering the value of gold supplied by the customer free of cost was USD 6,479.39. The department considered net realisable value as the value of goods d

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Glimpses of Supreme Court Rulings

Applicability of Section 50c to Rights in Land