TAXONOMY OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE OPERATOR UNDER GST

   TAXONOMY OF ELECTRONIC    COMMERCE OPERATOR UNDER GST

A.      INTRODUCTION:

A-1. 21st Century is an era of information and technology, where trade and commerce have been tremendously affected. Due to developments in technology, customer preferences, change in buying patterns, ease of transactions, reduction in cost, global access, data analytics and host of other reasons in this era of information and technology, Electronic Commerce is one of the fastest growing sectors in India, where innovative business models are continuously rocketing sky high. But it has certain challenges also with respect to tax structure particularly in the GST Regime. The provisions under Goods and Services Tax Law, being a newly introduced law, have been suitably incorporated in order to suit the requirements of Electronic Commerce sought to be carried out by the Electronic Commerce Operator. In this Article, every effort has been made to rely upon the authentic sources, such as, statutory provisions, clarifications given by the Department / GST Council, judicial / quasi-judicial pronouncements, etc., at one place for the purpose of convenience.

A-2. Before going into the intricacies of GST law, it is also imperative to have a holistic view on the modalities of Electronic Commerce as well as Electronic Commerce Operators. In this regard, NACIN has published an e-Book, wherein it has classified the Electronic Commerce based on stake holders involved thus: [1]“1.5 e-Commerce Business – Classification based on the stake holders involved:-

(a). Business to Consumer (B2C):- These e-commerce models connect business and individual customers who are end-users. The examples are flipkart, amazon, snapdeal, Paytm, shopclues etc.

(b). Consumer to Consumer (C2C):- Consumer to Consumer e-Commerce. These cover sale of second hand goods. Sometimes it is also referred to as online market places — It connect consumers to exchange goods and services and typically make their money by charging transaction or listing fees. The examples are eBay, olx, Ola, Uber, Urban Company etc.

(c). Business to Business (B2B): - In this, businesses sell to other companies. Typically, the goods and services are for business use only, such as to support productivity, collaboration, office needs, or the production process. In many cases, the buyer may also purchase the item in bulk for reselling purposes. Examples are: Alibaba, Indiamart, Sulekha.com, rapidue technologies etc.

(d). Business to Government (B2G): - Business to Government is an e-commerce model where business sells and markets its products to Government or public administrators. This model relies on successful bidding of Government contracts. A Government agency will typically put up a request for proposal and ecommerce businesses will have to bid.

(e). Consumer to Business (C2B): - Consumer to Business is a commerce model where consumers provide various products or services to businesses. Through the C2B model, businesses obtain information from their consumers to produce high-quality goods and services. For example, a website might enable customers to post the work they want to be completed and have businesses bid for the opportunity. Affiliate marketing services would also be considered C2B.”

A-3.

[2]“1.1 ----- There are many e-commerce companies and online shopping sites in India, offering a variety of products and services. The e-commerce operators can be broadly categorized based on the products and services they deal in. Amazon, Flipkart (promoted by Walmart), Ajio, ShopClues, Paytm Mall, Tata CLiQ and Alibaba deal in general merchandise and other items. Uber, Ola and Rapido are engaged in the transportation of passengers. Nykaa, Myntra, Purplle, Sephora, LimeRoad, Meesho (promoted by SoftBank), NNow and Snapdeal primarily deal in beauty, fashion and cosmetics. BigBasket, Amazon Fresh, JioMart, Kaze Living, Grofers and Instamart (Swiggy) operate in the grocery segment. FirstCry and Hopscotch deal in baby products, while Home Centre and Pepperfry deal in home furnishings and related products. Blinkit (Zomato) is also an e-commerce operator, primarily engaged in quick-commerce and the delivery of groceries and other daily-use items.

1.2. E-commerce works by connecting buyers and sellers using various electronic channels such as a website or social media, so that customers can find products and services to purchase. Then a payment processor enables the exchange of the goods or services.”

A-4. Further, the modalities of Electronic Commerce executed by the Electronic Commerce Operator has following two contemplations:

A. Levy and Collection of Tax under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act; and

B. Collection of Tax at Source under Section 52 of the CGST Act.

A-5. Goods and Services Tax on Electronic Commerce Operator, qua, Collection of tax at source, under Section 52 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act) came into force from 1st October, 2018, vide Notification No. 51/2018-Central Tax, dated 13.09.2018. “Electronic Commerce Operator” has been defined under Section 2(45) of the CGST Act to mean “any person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce”. What is “electronic commerce” has been defined under Section 2(44) of the CGST Act to mean “the supply of goods or services or both, including digital products over digital or electronic network”. This definition is composed of stipulations, such as, “supply”, “goods”, “services”, “digital products”, and “digital or electronic network”. The expression “supply” includes in its precincts [3]“all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business”. The expression ”goods” means [4]“every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply”. The expression ”services” means [5]“anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged”. This expression of “services” also includes [6]“facilitating or arranging transaction in securities”. In trade parlance, a digital product is known as intangible goods that is created, used, and distributed online. It is not physical – instead, it consists of software, data, media content, or digital services. Likewise, the expression “digital or electronic network” is a broad term describing any interconnected infrastructure used to transmit, process, or store data electronically. Most commonly used in legal and technological contexts, like e-commerce and taxation, it refers to digital pipes and platforms that connect computers, mobile devices, and telecommunication systems. Thus, a "digital or electronic facility or platform" is any web portal, mobile app, or digital network used to facilitate the supply of goods, services, or digital products between third-party sellers and customers.

A-6. CBIC has clarified that [7]“(t)ax Collection at Source (TCS) has similarities with TDS, as well as a few distinctive features. TDS refers to the tax which is deducted when the recipient of goods or services makes some payments under a contract etc. while TCS refers to the tax which is collected by the electronic commerce operator when a supplier supplies some goods or services through its portal and the payment for that supply is collected by the electronic commerce operator.”

B. LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 9(5) OF THE CGST ACT:

B-1. Section 9 of the CGST Act, being a charging section, inter alia levies Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST or simply GST) on all intra-State supplies of goods and services or both on the value determined under Section 15 and at such rates, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council and collected in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be paid by the taxable person. Similarly, Section 5(1) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short “IGST Act”) inter alia mandates that there shall be levied a tax called the integrated goods and services tax on all inter-State supplies of goods or services or both on the value determined under section 15 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and at such rates as may be prescribed and shall be paid by the taxable person.

B-2. In these sections, there are mainly four postulations, i.e., “levy”, “collection”, “value” and “rate”. The expression “value” has been ascertained in Section 52 itself that relates to Collection of Tax at Source. However, “value” for the purpose of Section 9(5) is [8]“transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply.” Classification of goods is determined in accordance with the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, whereas the rates of tax on goods are notified under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, as amended. Further, classification of services and applicable rates of tax are determined by using Services Accounting Code (SAC) as specified by the Central Government vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, as amended. However, so far as the expressions “levy” and “collection” are concerned, both are completely different from each other. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Processors Vs. Union of India [1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)] that “(t)ax is the amount payable as a result of the charging provision. It is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, the payment of which is enforce by law.” Therefore, levy of tax is subject matter of the Legislature (i.e. Parliament or State Legislature). Juxtaposition, collection of tax is a mechanism to be prescribed by the Executive (i.e. Government).

B-3. In the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. [2005 (182) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court has held that “there is a conceptual difference between “levy’’ and “collection’’. This point was highlighted by this Court in Gokak Patel Volkart Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum [1987 (28) E.L.T. 53 (S.C.)]. Referring to the earlier decision in Sirajul Haq Khan and Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. and Ors. [1959 SCR 1287] and N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Ors, v. Elphinestone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. [1971 (3) SCR 506], the difference between levy and collection was noticed with reference to Section 3 of the Act (Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 / Presently Central Excise Act, 1944) which is the charging provision. It was held that levy and collection are two distinct and separate steps.” This was more elaborately clarified by the Supreme Court in the matter of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. [1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.)], wherein the Apex Court has held that it is well settled by the scheme of Central Excises and Salt Act and clarified by several decisions that even though the taxable event is manufacture or production of excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later stage for administrative convenience. The scheme of the Excise Act read with relevant rules particularly Excise Rule 9A reveals that the taxable event is the manufacture and the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory. Therefore, when the goods were unconditionally exempted from duty on the date of manufacture but were dutiable on the date of their removal, they would be liable to duty because on the basis of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Excise authorities are within competence to apply the rates prevalent on the date of removal.

B-4. It is manifestly clear from the preceding paragraphs that the supply of services by the Electronic Commerce Operator relate to supplies of goods or services or both of the third party to the customers, which fall under the category of Electronic Commerce. Section 9(5) of the CGST Act envisages that “(t)he Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of services the tax on intra-State supplies of which shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator if such services are supplied through it, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services”. However, in case “where an electronic commerce operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory”, first proviso clause appended with this sub-section envisages that “any person representing such electronic commerce operator for any purpose in the taxable territory shall be liable to pay tax.” Further, “where an electronic commerce operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory and also he does not have a representative in the said territory, “second proviso clause appended therewith mandates that “such electronic commerce operator shall appoint a person in the taxable territory for the purpose of paying tax and such person shall be liable to pay tax.” These provisions are analogous to the provisions of State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short SGST Act). Similarly, Section 5(5) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act) along with proviso clauses appended therewith are analogous to the provisions contained in Section 9(5) of the CGST Act but for the inter-State supply of services. Thus, it follows from a bare perusal of this sub-section (i.e. sub-section (5) of Section 9 and sub-section (5) of Section 5 of IGST) that:

(i) It empowers the Government to specify by notification the categories of services;

(ii) The tax is imposed on intra-State supplies / inter-State supplies of such services;

(iii) The tax shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator if such services are supplied through it;

(iv) All the provisions of the CGST Act / SGST Act / IGST Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator;

(v) Such electronic commerce operator is deemed to be the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services.

B-5. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the CGST Act, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, has notified the following services, vide Notification No. 17/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, as amended, the tax on intra-State shall be paid by the Electronic Commerce Operator–

“(i) services by way of transportation of passengers by a radio-taxi, motorcab, maxicab [9][, motor cycle, [10][or any other motor vehicle except omnibus]];

[11][(ia) services by way of transportation of passengers by an omnibus except where the person supplying such service through electronic commerce operator is a company.]

(ii) services by way of providing accommodation in hotels, inns, guest houses, clubs, campsites or other commercial places meant for residential or lodging purposes, except where the person supplying such service through electronic commerce operator is liable for registration under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Central Goods and Services Act;

[12][(iii) services by way of house-keeping, such as plumbing, carpentering etc., except where the person supplying such service through electronic commerce operator is liable for registration under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Central Goods and Services Act;]

[13][(iv) supply of restaurant service other than the services supplied by restaurant, eating joints etc., located at specified premises.]

[14][(v) services by way of local delivery except where the person supplying such services through electronic commerce operator is liable for registration under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Central Goods and Services Act.]

Explanation. – For the purposes of this notification, –

(a) “radio taxi” means a taxi including a radio cab, by whatever name called, which is in two way radio communication with a central control office and is enabled for tracking using Global Positioning System (GPS) or General Packet Radio Service (GPRS);

(b) “maxi cab”, “motor cab” [15][, motor cycle, motor vehicle and omnibus shall have the same meanings as assigned to them respectively in clauses (22), (25), (27), (28) and (29) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)].

[16][(c) “specified premises” has the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (xxxvi) of paragraph 4 of notification number 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.]

[17] [(d) “Company” has the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013).]”

B-6. Thus, this notification has notified the services, which can conveniently be called as, – (i) services of transportation of passengers, (ii) short term accommodation services, (iii) house keeping services, (iv) restaurant services, and (v) local delivery services, on which GST is to be paid by the Electronic Commerce Operator under Section 9(5) ibid instead of the actual suppliers of services, if these services are supplied through the Electronic Commerce Operator. It may also be noted that certain provisions of CGST Act have been borrowed by the IGST Act stating inter alia that [18]“the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act relating to, - (x) tax deduction at source; and (xxiii) electronic commerce, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply, so far as may be, in relation to integrated tax as they apply in relation to central tax as if they are enacted under this Act.”

B-7. Levy of tax on Electronic Commerce Operator is entirely a new concept in Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, judicial pronouncements are not available on the issues relating to taxability on Electronic Commerce or Electronic Commerce Operator except one judgment of Delhi High Court. However, there are number of orders pronounced by the different Advance Ruling Authorities or the Appellate Advance Ruling Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”). The orders of Advance Ruling Authority or the Appellate Authority are binding only on the Applicant who has sought Ruling(s) in respect of any matter referred to the Authority and the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the Applicant. The Rulings of the Advance Ruling Authority or the Appellate authority do not apply to the other assessees. However, the ruling given by the Authority has some persuasive value in order to understand the concept having regard to the facts of the case. Therefore, following rulings are given hereunder for the purpose of convenience.

B-8. In the case of [19]In Re : Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2024) 24 Centax 118 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)], the Applicant proposed to enter into a new business model wherein technology services would be provided for connecting suppliers (drivers) of passenger transportation services with riders/recipients/users on company's digital app platform. The Applicant shall charge a membership/subscription fee to person (driver) who intends to use their platform to connect with customers and provide them with transportation services. Drivers, after payment of membership fee, if any, become customer of Applicant and can receive requests from riders. In instant case, App (digital platform) does not merely connect rider with driver, but provides a platform for communication between driver and rider without which contract for providing passenger transportation service cannot be completed. App provides user interface for drivers and riders, enables selection of start and end point by riders, calculates and displays a fare. Once rider is confirmed, location of customer and pick up point is shared by app. Start of ride, route taken for ride, and end of ride are captured and notified to customer by app. Thus, effectively services of transportation of passenger by driver is supplied through Applicant's app/digital platform/portal from beginning to end and also during entire period of ride. Hence, services are supplied through electronic commerce operator. Fare is fixed by app and same forms basis for effecting transaction between rider and driver using app. Passenger merely pays consideration to driver directly. Definition of e-commerce do not require that operator need to collect consideration. In instant case, Applicant is squarely covered under definition of 'electronic commerce operator' and supply of services by way of transportation of passengers is supplied through them. By virtue of deeming provision in Section 9(5) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017, Applicant is liable to pay tax. The Authority has held thus:

(a) The Applicant satisfies the definition of an e-commerce operator and the nature of supply as conceptualized in Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 17/2017 dated 28-6-2017.

(b) The Applicant is liable to collect and pay GST on the supply of services supplied by the drivers/service provider (person who has subscribed to online Uber platform in relation to proposed business model) to their customers (person who has subscribed to online Uber platform) identified on the Uber's platform) under the proposed business model.

B-9. In the case of [20]In Re : Natural Language Technology Research (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2024) 23 Centax 105 (A.A.R. - GST - W.B.)], the Applicant is a non-profit organisation who is engaged as a research and development organisation under Department of Information Technology and Electronics, Government of West Bengal. Applicant, under direction of Government of West Bengal, has developed a website and mobile application named 'Yatri Sathi Mobile app'. Applicant provides services for facilitating business transactions through 'Yatri Sathi' app by way of providing a platform to connect actual suppliers (cab drivers) and recipients (passengers intending to use driver's service). Applicant although owns, operates, and manages platform, its role is limited to facilitating connection between customers seeking transportation services and drivers willing to provide these services. App platform operated by Applicant merely facilitates sharing of information between drivers and customers, allowing them to connect for transportation services. Thus, business model promulgated by Applicant is unique where it merely connects driver and passenger and their role ends on such connection and effectively does not have any control over subsequent business activities as app platform does not collect consideration and has no control over actual provision of service by service provider. Therefore, even though the Applicant qualifies to be an electronic commerce operator, the supply of services is not made through him but such supply is independent in nature. Therefore, the Applicant, though qualifies the definition of being an e-commerce operator, does not satisfy the conditions of Section 9(5) of the GST Act for discharging the tax liability by an electronic commerce operator and hence, is not the person liable for discharge of tax liability under Section 9(5) of the GST Act.

B-10. In the case of [21]In Re : Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2024) 21 Centax 153 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)], the facts in brief are that the Applicant has proposed to provide website/mobile app platform ('Rapido'), as a discovery platform, to independent four-wheeler cab service providers (drivers/captains/subscribers), on a subscription basis, to enable them to connect with potential end users (also referred to as 'passengers’). The drivers shall enter into a standard agreement to create a business user account on furnishing certain documents, which shall be limited to providing of license or permission to use the said app. The passengers also shall get registered under the app to use the said app. The Applicant has also proposed to introduce pay per use ride monitoring fee, which is an optional service provided to the passengers, to ensure the passenger's safety during the ride that the passenger avails from the four-wheeler cab service providers. The Applicant has sought advance ruling on whether Applicant satisfies definition of an e-commerce operator and nature of supply as conceptualized in Section 9(5), read with Notification No. 17/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.

B-10.1 It has been held by the Advance Ruling Authority that the Applicant is deemed to be supplier, who supplies such service through electronic commerce operator. In instant case, services of transportation of passengers are provided by a four-wheeler car, which is a motor vehicle adapted to carry maximum four passengers excluding driver and thereby, it can carry not more than six passengers excluding driver. Hence, it qualifies to be a 'motor cab'. In instant case, services of intra-State supplies are notified by government covering services by way of transportation of passengers by motor cab. Further, App not only generates leads about customers to drivers, but also provides a platform for fare negotiation between customer and driver. Thus, effective services of transportation of passenger by driver is supplied through Applicant's App/portal from beginning to end and during entire period of ride. Accordingly, condition of services supplied through electronic commerce operator is satisfied. Therefore, supply of such service refers to supply of services by way of transportation of passengers by a radio-taxi, motor cab, maxi cab and motorcycles notified vide Notification No. 17/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 issued under Section 9 and supplied through electronic commerce operator.

B-10.2 Applicant has also sought advance ruling on whether supply by independent four-wheeler cab service provider (person who has subscribed to 'Rapido' App) to his passengers (who do not pay any subscription fee) on app platform amounts to supply by Applicant. It has further been held by the Authority that the Applicant is not involved in collection of consideration pertaining to ride on behalf of driver. Passenger pays consideration to driver directly. Though contract is between driver and passenger, further service is supplied by driver to passenger, but liability to pay tax is fastened on electronic commerce operator by way of deeming provision in Section 9(5). Therefore, all provisions of the Act shall apply to electronic commerce operator, as if, he is supplier and Applicant shall be liable for paying tax in relation to supply of such services. Therefore, supply by independent four-wheeler cab service provider (person who has subscribed to 'Rapido' App) to his passengers (who do not pay any subscription fee) on App platform amounts to supply by the Applicant by virtue of Section 9(5).

B-10.3 Applicant has also sought advance ruling on whether Applicant is liable to pay GST on supply of services provided by independent three/two-wheeler cab service provider (person who has subscribed to Applicant's 'Rapido' App) to his passengers on Applicant's App platform. The Authority has held that Notification No. 17/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 issued under Section 9(5) covers services by way of transportation of passengers by a radio-taxi, motor cab, maxi cab and motorcycle. Further, Explanation (b) to said notification specifies that 'maxi cab', 'motor cab', and 'motorcycle' shall have same meaning as assigned to them under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 'Motor cab' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding driver for hire or reward. Further, 'motorcycle' means a two-wheeled motor vehicle inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel attached to motor vehicle. From these definitions, 'three wheeler' is covered under motor-cab, that is, any motor vehicle adapted to carry not more than 6 passengers and 'two wheeler' is covered under 'Motorcycle' definition. Therefore, Applicant is liable to pay GST on supply of services provided by independent three/two-wheeler cab service provider (person who has subscribed to Applicant's 'Rapido' App) to his passengers on Applicant's App platform.

B-10.4 Further, the Applicant has sought advance ruling on what is rate at which GST shall be collected on ride monitoring fee and SAC code that shall be applicable. The Authority has held that the Applicant introduces pay-per-use ride monitoring charge which is an optional service provided to passengers, to ensure passenger's safety before ride, during ride and after ride. Aforesaid service involves providing rider confidentiality of customer information, notifying route deviation, ride sharing, SOS, customer support on call for ensuring safety of passenger. Said optional service is intended to be provided to passenger directly by Applicant for which a separate standardized consideration is charged based on e-distance and time of ride. Therefore, aforesaid service is covered under SAC 9985, attracting 18 per cent GST (CGST 9 per cent and SGST 9 per cent) in terms of Sl. No. 23(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (i.e. Other support services).

B-11. In the matter of [22]In Re : Juspay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2023) 10 Centax 385 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)], the Applicant provides computer services through 'Namma Yatri' App for facilitating business transactions of supply of services connecting through platform of suppliers (auto driver) and recipients (customers who use auto driver's service), registered under said App on payment of membership charges and subscription fee and also on furnishing required documents. Applicant is limited to providing App services and collection of registration and subscription fees from subscribers of their App. Applicant collects and remits tax on said fees collected. Thus, Applicant merely connects auto driver and passenger and their role ends on such connection, they do not collect consideration and have no control over actual provision of service by service provider and neither they take responsibility for operational and completion of ride. The said supply of services is not through electronic commerce operator, but is independent. Therefore, Applicant does not satisfy conditions of Section 9(5) for discharge of tax liability by electronic commerce operator. Thus, Applicant is not person liable for discharge of tax liability under Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017.

B-12. In the case of [23]In Re : Multi-Verse Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2025) 29 Centax 243 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)], the Applicant provides computer application services through the APP known as MYn for facilitating business transactions of goods or services or both connecting through the said APP/platform to the suppliers/sellers and recipients/buyers, registered under the said APP on payment of membership charges & subscription fee and also on furnishing required documents as well as on entering into EULA (End User Licence Agreement). The Applicant provides technology to the cab operators; the APP allows the passenger to identify the nearby cab through which he can take the ride and no further; the ride is not monitored by the Applicant; the completion of the ride is not known to the Applicant; the fare details are not known to the Applicant; the fare and method of its collection is not known to the Applicant; the fare is not collected through the Applicant; the Applicant is not responsible to the supplier for non-receipt of the consideration for the supply and the Applicant is not responsible to the consumer for deficiency on the part of the supplier in rendering of the services.

B-12.1 The Authority has held that it is inferred from the definitions of “electronic commerce” and “electronic commerce operator” under Section 2(44) and Section 2(45) respectively that Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO) means any person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce i.e. for the supply of goods or services or both, including digital products over digital or electronic network. In the instant case the Applicant owns digital platform (APP MYn) for the supply of goods or services or both. Thus, the Applicant squarely fits into the definition and qualifies to be an Electronic Commerce Operator.

B-12.2 In the instant case, it is observed that the Applicant, because of their unique business model, merely connects the driver and passenger and their role ends on such connection; they do not collect the consideration; they have no control over actual provision of service by service provider; they do not have the details of the ride; they do not have control room/call centre etc. The supply happens independent of the Applicant and the Applicant is involved only in the identification of the supplier of services and doesn't take responsibility for the operational and completion of the ride. Thus, it is observed that supply of services is not through the electronic commerce operator, but is independent. Therefore, the Applicant does not satisfy the conditions of Section 9(5) for the discharge of tax liability by electronic commerce operator. Thus, the Applicant, though qualifies the definition of being an e-commerce operator, is not the person liable for discharge of tax liability under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

B-13. In the matter of [24]In Re : Gensol Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2023) 3 Centax 202 (A.A.R. - GST - Guj.)], the Applicant M/s. Gensol Ventures Pvt. Ltd. intends to own, develop an electronic/digital platform for booking of cabs, where the drivers will list their electric motor vehicles on the proposed electronic platform/App for booking by the customers for the passenger transportation services; that E-Commerce Operator means any person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce and considering this, the Applicant can be termed as an E-Commerce Operator; that the Electric Motor Vehicle operated by the Drivers will be in connection with Central Office and can be tracked through Global Positioning System (GPS) or General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) and qualify as radio taxi.

B-13.1 The Applicant further offers discounts to the customers for the passenger transportation service (cab service) provided by the drivers and the consideration charged and collected by Gensol from the customer is after deducting such discount amount; that an amount equivalent to the discount offered to customer is contributed out of the Applicant's pocket and this discount is recorded as a 'marketing expenditure' in the books of account of the applicant; that the Applicant will charge an amount towards commission by issuing a tax invoice on the Drivers for providing a digital platform in order to get connected with the potential customers; that the Applicant will remit an amount to the Driver towards passenger transportation service provided by reducing an amount recoverable from the Drivers towards commission.

B-13.2 In the instant case, the Applicant being the person required to discharge the amount of tax under sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the CGST Act needs to obtain compulsory GST registration. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that the Applicant shall be held liable to discharge the amount of tax as if he is the supplier under the provisions of this Act for the services supplied through the electronic platform i.e. App. On recommendations of the Council, the Government may notify the specific categories of services to which Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 be applicable.

B-13.3 In the present case, the Authority has held that the Applicant thus steps into the shoes of the 'supplier' of service i.e. Driver/s, therefore, the liability to raise invoice, collect the consideration, discharge GST, file the GST returns etc. is legally cast on the Applicant. Accordingly, the Applicant is liable to pay tax on the transaction value of transportation service in terms of Section 15(1) of the CGST Act. The GST is to be applied and remitted to the exchequer on the taxable value after discount and so, the Applicant is to pay GST on the amount charged to customer (service recipient), which is the consideration and is paid by the service recipient. Section 9(5) of the CGST Act read with Notification No. 17/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 in very clear terms state that where transportation services are supplied through an electronic commerce operator, then all the provisions of the CGST Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services.

B-13.4 The Authority has further held that Applicant is required to discharge the amount of tax on the value of supply of services provided as per Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017. GST is to be discharged on the transaction value as per Section 15(1) of the CGST Act which is the price actually paid or payable for the supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related, and the price is the sole consideration for the supply. There are certain inclusions and exclusions that are prescribed in law. Section 15(3) of the CGST Act, relating to discount, provides that discounts given before or at the time of supply recorded in the invoice, can be reduced from the value of supply. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 categorically states that the value of supply shall not include amount of discount if it is offered before or at the time of supply if the same is duly recorded in the invoice issued. The Applicant in its discretion offers discount to the customer, which by virtue of Section 15(3) of the CGST Act is not liable to GST. GST is not applicable on the discount offered to the customer by the Applicant, in terms of Section 15(3)(a) of the CGST Act. The amount equivalent to discount, which is remitted by the Applicant to Driver/s, and recorded as a marketing expense in the books of account of the Applicant is not liable to GST since such payment and indeed transaction is out of the pale of and definition of 'supply' under section 7 of the CGST Act. The discount offered by the Applicant to a customer at the time of supply, cannot be subjected to GST.

B-14. In the matter of [25]In Re : Balat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2024) 19 Centax 249 (A.A.R. - GST - T.N.)], the facts in brief are that the Applicant is a Chennai based startup engaged mainly in providing a mobile based digital platform "VYAVSHAY" - business to consumer model for small entrepreneurs to reach out bigger market easily at their own terms and conditions. The business provides an online mobile platform to entrepreneurs where various business offerings are listed on the app and end-consumer can avail the listed services. At present, the app is offering (a) Farm equipment services: Hiring or rental services of these farm equipment - Cultivator, Thresher, Reaper, Rotavator, Soil Testing services, Sprayer, Trailor; (b) Transportation services: Cab, Passenger Auto, Pick-up vans, Goods Auto, JCB; (c) Skill-based services and other services: Electrician, Plumber, Driver, Carpenter.

B-14.1 The Partners or Service providers register the details of services to be provided by them, including name, address, geo-location etc., on the said platform of the Applicant. The consumer/user also registers in the App specifying their requirement, which includes the type of service, date, time and location at which they actually require that service. Based on which the service provider reaches the location of the consumer to render the service and the user/consumer receives the services at their door step itself. Further, on completion of service, the user may record their feedback and rate the quality of service. Thus, the Applicant facilitates the partner/service provider in supplying their service to the end-user making use of the App maintained by them and enables the user to get to the door-step service. Hence, the Applicant squarely fits into the definition and qualifies to be an Electronic Commerce operator as Section 9(5) of the Act of 2017, which creates a statutory obligation on the electronic commerce operator considering them as the deemed suppliers in respect of certain notified services supplied through the online platform maintained by them. It is very important to note that the language employed in Section 9(5) viz., "shall be paid" and "as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax", makes it clear that the liability to pay tax on the supply is mandatorily placed on the “e-commerce operator".

B-14.2 The Authority has also held that the Applicant squarely falls under the ambit of section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017/TNGST Act, 2017 w.r.t. Notification No. 17/2017, dated 28-6-2017. Hence, with regard to the segment of transaction on which the applicant is liable to pay tax, the Applicant has to pay tax on the amount charged by the Applicant towards the usage of the app as well as on the transaction value as sole consideration in terms of Section 15 of the Act, paid by the users towards receipt of supply of notified services under the Notification No. 17/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, as the Applicant, being an e-commerce operator, is deemed to be the supplier of services as per the provisions of section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the Applicant is liable to pay GST only on the transaction between the Applicant and the partners i.e. based on usage of the app with respect to supply of services other than which are notified under Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017.

B-15. In the matter of [26]In Re : Sadashiv Anajee Shete (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 688 (A.A.R. - GST)], the Applicant is Unregistered person (URD) under GST Act and is claiming to be engaged in the business of assisting believers, followers and devotees to book Pundits/Brahmins online for their religious ceremonies like pujas, abhisheks etc., in state of Maharashtra. Applicant hires various expert Pundits in order to provide services of religious ceremony like pujas, abhisheks etc. The said service is being provided through Applicant’s own website by charging the money. The Authority has held that the Entry No. 13 (heading-9963) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017, covers the services by a person by way of “Conduct of any religious ceremony”. Thus, it would cover services provided by a person who is conducting the religious ceremony. He has facilitated the platform to the recipient of services on electronic basis through their internet website and operates his business, which is business of e-commerce. He is facilitator between the pundits and customers. The pundits are not employee of the Applicant. In the present case Pundits are the person who are actually performing the services of puja and abhishek. Therefore, the Applicant is covered under Section 2(44) and 2(45) of CGST/MGST Act as a “Electronic commerce” and “Electronic commerce operator”. Considering Section 24 and the categories of persons mentioned therein, the Applicant shall be required to be registered under this Act, the category No. (x) is related to “every electronic commerce operator;”. Therefore, the Applicant is covered under Electronic Commerce Operator and shall be required to be registered under this Act without fulfilling of threshold limit.

B-15.1 The Applicant sought query in such way: If the Applicant is liable to pay GST, then on what value GST liability needs to be discharged, whether on the commission which the Applicant receives from pundits/website users or on the booking value received from website users?

In this regard, the Authority has held that as per Section 15(1), the value of supply of services shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply. In the present the Applicant and recipient are not related persons and price received is sole consideration. These services are given by the Applicant in his business models to choose the type of model. In all the three business models, the Authority has found that consideration is first received by him on online as a whole and thereafter major part of it, is given to Pundits who are having an agreement with the Applicant to provide their services as and when it is requisitioned, but they are not the Applicant’s employees and are providing their services independently. The actual basic services like puja, abhishek etc. are performed by the pundits or Brahmins which are exempted by nature of notification issued under GST Act. The commission portion is received to the Applicant out of total consideration received online from the service recipient. As per the provisions of law, the commission is the supply of service and it would be the value on which he would be liable for GST and thus the Applicant would be liable to pay GST on the value of commission received from website users not for on total amount received.

B-16. In the case of [27]In Re : DSoft Innovations LLP [(2025) 37 Centax 11 (A.A.R. - GST - Guj.)], the Applicant is engaged in providing service through their Freedeem application/platform [for short 'freedeem app']. The main function of the “freedeem app” is to help local businesses by promoting their store on its digital platform at zero investment. The primary function is to enable the local businesses (merchants) to participate on the “freedeem app’ without any upfront charges, by offering discounts / deals on their merchandise. Any merchant can register himself on the app by making an application and after certain procedure, merchant’s request goes live on ‘freedeem app’. The ‘freedeem app’ charges a success fee (commission) only if business is transacted through the app. The Applicant is paying GST on the success fee @ 18%. Consumers have to visit the store of the merchant physically and avail the offer as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer. The Applicant never provides any delivery of goods or services to the recipient of goods or services through the ‘freedeem app’ like Swiggy and Zomato. The user can purchase voucher / coupon on Freedeem Platform by using following methods:

(a) Pay Bill:- In this method, Users directly visit the merchant and confirm the availability of the offer by showing it to the merchant. After consuming service/product user-will pay the bill using "Pay Bill" option as per merchant's invoice, in which user will enter bill's discounted value and pay on the Freedeem app. The collected amount will be paid back to the merchant in the next on second Day of redemption after deducting commission and necessary taxes by Freedeem.

(b) Buy Now:- In this method, Users directly visit the merchant and confirm the availability of the offer by showing it to the merchant. Once merchant confirms the availability of the offers, users buy the same by clicking the "Buy Now" button on the Freedeem App. User will pay offer amount to the Freedeem which will be paid back to the merchant on second day of redemption by Freedeem after deducting its commission and necessary taxes. Users can redeem the purchased offer as per its validity and T&C at the outlet of the merchant by scanning the QR code (a unique QR code is provided to every merchant). Once a user redeems the offer, merchants provide the service / product as mentioned on the Freedeem App. Users can keep the selected offer in the wallet to avail the limited quantity or limited time period benefit provided by the merchant. The process is purely dependent on merchants and users. Freedeem acts as a facilitator for both parties.

B-16.1 Applicant is holding GST and TCS registrations and has sought ruling as to whether Applicant is considered as E Commerce Operator under the GST Act or not? If yes, then Applicant is required to take compulsory registration or not? The Authority has held that transaction in vouchers, viz., 'pay bill' or 'buy now', is neither supply of goods nor services. However, the payment is routed through their Freedeem App, where collection of consideration is made by the Applicant on behalf of the merchants, thereby making the activity supply of services over electronic network. Hence, the said activity falls within the ambit of 'electronic commerce'. Further, it is factually not disputed that it is the Applicant who owns, operates, manages the freedeem app for electronic commerce. Therefore, the Applicant, in view of the activity mentioned above, is an electronic commerce operator under the GST Act. Accordingly, in terms of Section 24(x) read with Section 52, every electronic commerce operator irrespective of his turnover is mandatorily required to obtain registration. Further, this registration is in addition to and separate from GST registration obtained as a normal supplier.

B-16.2 Applicant has further sought ruling as to whether the Applicant is liable to pay RCM under Section 9(5), being electronic commerce operator, though Applicant is not providing food delivery service through its Freedeem app to the recipient of services? The Applicant is suppling vouchers/coupons only. The Applicant is not providing food delivery services to the end users. However, the Applicant accepts payment on behalf of the merchants. The Applicant makes the payment on the second day of redemption to the merchants after deducting their commission for providing its services. The Applicant does not take any responsibility for the supply of services as described on the freedeem app. Since, the Applicant's services do not fall within the ambit of the services notified in Notification No. 17/2017-CT (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 in terms of Section 9(5), they are outside the scope of this sub-section.

B-16.3 The Appellant has also sought a ruling on the question as to whether they are required to deduct TCS if they are not liable under RCM for restaurant services. The Authority has held that that Section 52(1) very clearly states that every electronic commerce operator, not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at such rate not exceeding one per cent, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, of the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the electronic commerce operator. The explanation further goes on to state that the expression "net value of taxable supplies" means the aggregate value of taxable supplies of goods or services or both, excluding services notified under section 9(5), made during any month by all registered persons through the operator reduced by the aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers during the month. Further, it is on record that nature of business of the Applicant allows them to collect money on behalf of the suppliers. This being factually undisputed, the Applicant is liable to collect TCS in terms of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

B-16.4 Where Applicant operated app with centralized backend in Ahmedabad and conducted operations across several states, collecting and remitting consideration on behalf of merchants after deducting TCS, registration for TCS must be obtained in each State/UT irrespective of centralized operations, with head office as place of business if no physical presence exists, and TCS to be split at 0.5% CGST plus 0.5% SGST/UTGST for intra-State and 1% IGST for inter-State supplies.

B-17. [28]In Re : Kou-Chan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 193 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)], the facts in brief are that the Applicant has proposed to operate a mobile based taxi aggregation service on a pan-India basis under the trade name “DYUT RIDES”. The Applicant has a unique business model comprising of three entities, first, the Applicant as the ‘Taxi Aggregator’, second, an In-charge for each District known as ‘Associate Partner’ (usually a proprietor or single individual) and third, the Taxi Driver’/‘Owner’. They are responsible for linking the driver to the passenger. They neither own any vehicle nor employ the driver. The drivers are registered with them. They utilise the services of ‘Associate Partner’, one or more in a district, who is responsible for the well-being of the passengers and of the drivers viz., accidents etc. In the revenue break up provided by the Applicant, they are charging GST from passengers on the basic fare paid to the driver, collecting pick up cost from the passenger, service charge, associate partner’s charge and payment gateway charge. Besides, the Applicant also collects toll charges, luggage charges, waiting charges, cancellation, insurance etc. which may be shared with drivers. Further, there is ‘Goodwill Bonus’ which is purely a voluntary amount paid by passengers to drivers at the time of rating the services, which is credited to the driver’s account by the Applicant. The Applicant collects service charge on this amount. Lastly, there is a Participation Fee which is a payment made by drivers to the Applicant when they bid for passengers offering different fares. In view of this, the Applicant has sought advance rulings in respect of the questions mentioned below and the rulings given by the Authority.

B-17.1 The first question is whether the various supplies (of the applicant, the vehicle owner, the driver and the associate partner together) qualify as Composite supply?

The Authority has clarified that conditions for a supply to be considered as a Composite Supply under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act are (i) the supplier (taxable person) should supply two or more taxable supplies to a recipient, (ii) the said supplies should be naturally bundled and (iii) the supplies should be supplied in conjunction with each other, in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply. In the instant case, the Applicant is providing two taxable services, i.e. providing an online platform and insurance coverage to the passenger. It is an admitted fact that the insurance coverage to the passenger is optional and also online platform service is neither related to nor ancillary to insurance service. Thus, these two supplies are not naturally bundled. Further, the said supplies are not in conjunction with each other, in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the activities performed by the Applicant do not amount to a composite supply.

B-17.2 The second question is whether the pick-up charges paid to the owner/driver fall under GST rate of 5%?

In the instant case, the Authority has held that the driver provides the pick-up service to the passenger and the consideration for the said service is collected from the passenger by the Applicant through their e-commerce platform. The driver needs to pick up the passenger before starting of the radio taxi service and hence the pick-up service is incidental to the main service of transportation of passengers by the drivers. The Applicant has been made liable for paying the tax in respect of the said service through the e-commerce platform, as if the Applicant is the supplier of such service, in terms of Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, Notification No. 17/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 stipulates that an electronic commerce operator is supposed to pay GST for services by way of transportation of passengers by a radio taxi. In view of the foregoing, the Authority has held that the pick-up charges and basic fare are part of the service of transportation of passengers by a radio taxi and hence the Applicant is liable to pay GST @ 5%, on the pick-up charges also.

B-17.3 The third question is whether any supply of service exists between the applicant/aggregator and the Associate partner and if yes, what is the rate at which GST has to be collected and remitted?

In this regard, the Authority has held that responsibility of the associate partner includes on boarding and scaling up of business by registering the passengers and owners/drivers along with taking care of their well-being during accidents etc. The associate partner is providing support services to the Applicant in terms of increasing the magnitude of the business by providing assistance to the Applicant’s customers/users and taking care of them in time of need. Further, the said services are not part of the services of transportation of passengers through the e-commerce operator and hence are not covered under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Authority has observed from the revenue break up provided by the Applicant that the Applicant’s service charges, associate partner’s charges and payment gateway charges are collected together from the passenger by the Applicant. The passenger does not know the heads under which these amounts are collected but pays the total amount. Thus, it is nothing but classification of income to different heads. The instant question is relevant to only associate partner’s charges.

In the instant case the associate partner is providing services to the Applicant. The impugned services of associate partner are covered by clause (ii) of Sr. No. 23 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and hence GST @ 18% has to be paid by associate partners in case the associate partner is registered under GST. In the case where the associate partners are not registered under GST due to threshold limit, no GST is leviable on the amount remitted to the associate partner.

B-17.4 The fourth question is whether the amount received from drivers/owners towards bidding gets covered in the 5% GST or should it be separately charged at 18%?

The Authority has held that the amount received as a bidding charge is outside the fold of basic fare i.e. the relevant service is not related to the service provided by the owner/driver to the passenger/customer through the e-commerce operator. Therefore, 5% GST rate is not applicable. Explanatory Notes to the scheme of classification of services under Heading 9985 99 describes “other support services”, which is covered by clause (ii) of Sr. No. 23 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, at the rate of 18%.

B-17.5 The fifth question is related to the goodwill bonus being paid by passenger to the driver and on which the applicant collects the service charges, i.e. whether the service charges so collected attract GST and if so at what rate?

The Authority has found that goodwill bonus is a voluntary payment made by passengers when they are happy with the service provided by the drivers. It is outside the fold of basic fare charged from the passengers for the trip. The Applicant collects service charge on the goodwill amount. The service charge collected for facilitating the payment of goodwill amount to drivers is consideration in terms of Section 2(31) of CGST Act, 2017 and hence is liable for GST at 18% under Heading 9985 vide clause (ii) of Sr. No. 23 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.

B-17.6 The sixth question is whether the charges for cancelling the trip for any reason attract GST liability?

In this regard, the Applicant has submitted that cancellation charges collected from the passengers may be shared with the owners or drivers. The Authority has held that the activity of tolerating the cancellation by the Applicant for a consideration is supply of service by virtue of clause (e) of para 5 of Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017 and attracts GST at 18%.

B-17.7 The seventh question is whether the charges for insurance come under composite supply?

In this regard, it has been observed from the terms and conditions that passengers are covered under appropriate insurance against accidents; that the passenger has to opt and give his/her specific consent for the insurance coverage, at the time of booking the ride/trip. The Authority has observed that its optional on the part of passenger to avail insurance on the trip and the same will not fall under composite supply.

B-17.8 The last question is if the principal supplier/applicant collects GST, say at 5% along with fare from passengers (as mentioned in the Table submitted by the applicant), does it amount compliance of the GST Rules?

The Authority has held that 5% GST is only applicable on basic fare. The Applicant has to pay GST at 18% on other incomes.

B-18. It is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered in the matter of Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2023) 5 Centax 175 (Del.)]. The facts in brief are that Uber India Systems Private Limited [W.P.(C) No. 14048 of 2021] ('Petitioner 1'), Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Driver Union [W.P.(C) No. 14579 of 2021] ('Petitioner 2') and IBIBO Group Private Limited along with Make My Trip (India) Private Limited [W.P.(C) 14826/2021] (collectively referred to as 'Petitioner 3'). The petitions had been filed challenging the Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Notification No. 16/2021- Central Tax (Rate) and Clauses 1(i) and 2(i) of Notification No. 17/2021 - Central Tax (Rate), both dated 18-11-2021, as ultra vires to the Constitution of India ('Constitution') and section 9(5) and 11 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

B-18.1 Notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 had notified the rate of tax on supply of services. However, Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 had provided unconditional exemption from payment of Goods and Service Tax in cases of (i) supply of services by auto-rickshaws (ii) transportation of passengers by stage carriage other than air-conditioned stage carriage. The said exemption of tax on the 'fare' was available to the individual auto-rickshaw driver, bus operator and the ECO irrespective of the mode of booking availed by the consumer, i.e., online/offline or offline agents.

B-18.2 Subsequently, the Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate), dated 18-11-2021 amended Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and withdrew the exemption to the Electronic Commerce Operators ('ECOs') for the aforesaid services. Notification No. 17/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06.2017, inter alia notified that in case of (i) services by way of transportation of passengers by a radio-taxi, motorcab, maxicab and motor cycle, the tax on intra-State supplies shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator. Notification No. 17/2021-Central Tax (Rate), dated 18-11-2021 amended Notification No. 17/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06.2017, whereby for the words "and motor cycle;", the words, "motor cycle, omnibus or any other motor vehicle;" was substituted. Thus, exemption to the Electronic Commerce Operators ('ECOs') granted vide the parent Notifications for the aforesaid services was withdrawn with effect from 1-1-2022, with respect to a booking made by a consumer through the electronic platform of an ECO for an auto-rickshaw ride or a bus ride, the 'fare' has become exigible to tax.

B-18.3 Thus, the issue before the Court was as to whether notifications withdrawing exemption from GST to service of transportation by auto-rickshaw and non-AC stage carriage provided through e-commerce operators (ECOs), which was otherwise available to individual service providers was in violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India. The High Court has held that classification created between ECOs and individual service providers fulfils test of reasonable classification. Scheme of GST recognizes supply of services through ECOs as an independent taxable event of supply distinct from individual service providers. Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017 deems ECO to be supplier of service where such services were supplied through ECO by individual service providers. Individual suppliers who are otherwise exempt from registration are required to obtain registration if supply is made through ECO. Interplay of Sections 24(ix) and 52 ibid evidences distinction between supply of service through ECO and individual supplier, as a separate class of persons under statute. Effect of notification in withdrawing exemption from ECOs and making levy of GST on fare of non-AC stage carriage ticket and auto-rickshaw ride booked through an ECO is identical and non-discriminatory.

B-18.4 Whether auto-rickshaw drivers / bus-operators supplying transportation of passenger service through e-commerce operators (ECOs) is on parity with individual auto-rickshaw drivers/individual bus operators. It has been held that taxation in hands of ECO for booking made through their platform would subserve interest of individual bus operator/auto-rickshaw drivers and does not affect adversely interests of consumer. Consumer who books auto-rickshaw ride through an ECO and consumer who uses street hailed auto-rickshaw fall under different categories as although quality of physical ride in both auto-rickshaws may be same but experience of doorstep convenience and assurance in safety makes experience different for consumers. Treating suppliers rendering services through ECOs and suppliers independently providing said services at par would amount to lack of reasonable classification, resulting in gross inequality. As ECOs and individual service providers are distinct from each other, exemption available to individual service providers cannot be said to be available to ECOs. Relationship between ECOs, consumer and vendor are on principal-to-principal basis. ECOs are not acting as agents of auto-rickshaw drivers/bus-operators. Consumer while opting to avail services of ECO, is also opting for these add-on services as a result of same, ECO itself becomes supplier and is not acting as an agent of supplier. As ECOs are providing bundle of services and take commission both from consumer and individual supplier, they are an independent supplier of service and service provided by an independent supplier is only one facet of bundle of services assured by ECOs to consumer.

B-18.5 Whether Government can by way of notification, withdraw exemption that was earlier available. It has been held that claiming exemption from payment of tax is not a vested right available to taxpayers. As exemption is not a constitutional guarantee or statutory right available to taxpayers, under Section 11 of CGST Act, 2017 exemption that was earlier available can be withdrawn. No mandate under GST that precludes department from granting exemption to a distinct class of supplier of service. Government can withdraw exemption from distinct category of consumer who opts to use e-commerce operators (ECOs) for making bookings. Finally, the said Writ Petitions have been dismissed by the High Court.

C. COLLECTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 52 OF THE CGST ACT:

C-1. Further, Section 52 of the CGST Act governs the provisions of Collection of Tax at Source, where sub-section (1) thereof starts with non-obstante clause, states that “every electronic commerce operator (hereafter in this section referred to as the "operator"), not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at such rate not exceeding one per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, of the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the operator.” Similar provisions are also contained in Section 52(1) of the State Goods and Services Tax Acts, which are analogous to Section 52(1) of the CGST Act, states that [29]“every electronic commerce operator (hereafter in this section referred to as the “operator”), not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at such rate not exceeding one per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, of the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the operator.” Further, 2nd proviso clause appended with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 evince that “that in the case of tax collected at source, the operator shall collect tax at such rate not exceeding two per cent, as may be notified on the recommendations of the Council, of the net value of taxable supplies.” Also, this [30]“power to collect the amount specified in sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to any other mode of recovery from the operator.” The amount so collected is called as Tax Collection at Source (TCS).

C-2. However, the Central Government has notified the rate of amount of the tax collected at source under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the CGST Act stating that [31]“every electronic commerce operator, not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at a rate of [32][0.25 per cent] of the net value of intra-State taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the said operator.” Further, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, has notified that [33]“every electronic commerce operator, not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at a rate of [34][half percent.] of the net value of inter-State taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the said operator.”

C-3. The expression “net value of taxable supplies” means [35]“the aggregate value of taxable supplies of goods or services or both, other than services notified under sub-section (5) of section 9, made during any month by all registered persons through the operator reduced by the aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers during the said month”. In simple words, it means “the aggregate value of taxable supplies of goods or services or both” minus “aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers”, i.e. value of returned / rejected goods or services by the buyer / consumer. It has also been clarified that [36]“(t)he “net value of taxable supplies” means the aggregate value of taxable supplies of goods or services or both, other than the services on which entire tax is payable by the e-commerce operator, made during any month by a registered supplier through such operator reduced by the aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to such supplier during the said month.”

C-4. [37]“An e-commerce company is required to collect tax only on the net value of taxable supplies made through it. In other words, value of the supplies which are returned (supply return) may be adjusted from the aggregate value of taxable supplies made by each supplier (i.e. on GSTIN basis). In other words, if two suppliers “A” and “B” are making supplies through an e-commerce operator, the “net value of taxable supplies” would be calculated separately in respect of “A” and “B”. If the value of returned supplies is more than supplies made on behalf of any of such supplier during any tax period, the same would be ignored in his case.” Under Section 52, e-commerce operator collects TCS at the net of returns. Sometimes sales return is more than sales and hence there is negative amount. In this regard, it has been clarified that [38]“(n)egative amount cannot be declared. There will be no impact in next tax period also. In other words, if returns are more than the supplies made during any tax period, the same would be ignored in current as well as future tax period(s).”

C-5. However, [39]“TCS is to be collected once supply has been made through the e-commerce operator and where the business model is that the consideration is to be collected by the e-commerce operator irrespective of the actual collection of the consideration. For example, if the supply has taken place through the e-commerce operator on 30th October, 2018 but the consideration for the same has been collected in the month of November, 2018, then TCS for such supply has to be collected and reported in the statement for the month of October, 2018.”

C-6. A question arises as to whether TCS is to be collected on import of goods or services or both? In this regard, it has been clarified that [40]“TCS is not liable to be collected on any supplies on which the recipient is required to pay tax on reverse charge basis. As far as import of goods is concerned since same would fall within the domain of Customs Act, 1962, it would be outside the purview of TCS. Thus, TCS is not liable to be collected on import of goods or services.”

C-7. What is fate of this amount collected by the operator is that [41]“(t)he amount collected under sub-section (1) shall be paid to the Government by the operator within ten days after the end of the month in which such collection is made, in such manner as may be prescribed.” Further, [42]“(t)he supplier who has supplied the goods or services or both through the operator shall claim credit, in his electronic cash ledger, of the amount collected and reflected in the statement of the operator furnished under sub-section (4), in such manner as may be prescribed.” It is also inter alia mentioned that [43]any amount collected under section 52 and claimed by the registered taxable person from whom the said amount was collected shall be credited to his electronic cash ledger maintained in FORM GST PMT-05. The CBIC has also clarified that [44]“(t)he tax collected by the Operator shall be credited to the cash ledger of the supplier who has supplied the goods/services through the Operator. The supplier can claim credit of the tax collected and reflected in the return by the Operator in his [supplier’s] electronic cash ledger.” It has more elaborately been clarified that [45]“(t)he amount of TCS deposited by the operator with the appropriate Government will be reflected in the electronic cash ledger of the actual registered supplier (on whose account such collection has been made) on the basis of the statement filed by the operator in FORM GSTR-8 in terms of Rule 67 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The said credit can be used at the time of discharge of tax liability by the actual supplier.” It is also pertinent to mention here that payment of TCS through Input Tax Credit of operator for depositing TCS as per Section 52 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not allowed, as clarified by the Department that [46]“payment of TCS is not allowed through Input Tax Credit of e-Commerce operator.” However, as far as tax liability on such supply is concerned, it may be noted that [47]“(t)he concerned supplier, in whose output tax liability any amount has been added under subsection (10), shall pay the tax payable in respect of such supply along with interest, at the rate specified under sub-section (1) of section 50 on the amount so added from the date such tax was due till the date of its payment.”

C-8. So far as refund of the TCS is concerned, it has been clarified that the refund of such TCS credit lying in the ledger would be allowed at par with the refund provisions contained in section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, stating that [48]“TCS collected is to be deposited by the e-commerce operator separately under the respective tax head (i.e. Central tax / State tax / Union territory tax / Integrated tax). Based on the statement (FORM GSTR-8) filed by the e-commerce operator, the same would be credited to the electronic cash ledger of the actual supplier in the respective tax head. If the supplier is not able to use the amount lying in the said cash ledger, the actual supplier may claim refund of the excess balance lying in his electronic cash ledger in accordance with the provisions contained in section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.”

C-9. The CBIC has also discussed the exact nature of TCS with an example stating that [49]“(t)here are many e-Commerce operators [hereinafter referred to as an Operator], like Amazon, Flipkart, Jabong, etc. operating in India. These operators display on their portal products as well as services which are actually supplied by some other person to the consumer. The goods or services belonging to other suppliers are displayed on the portals of the operators and consumers buy such goods/services through these portals. On placing the order for a particular product/service, the actual supplier supplies the selected product/service to the consumer. The price/consideration for the product/service is collected by the Operator from the consumer and passed on to the actual supplier after the deduction of commission by the Operator. The Government has placed the responsibility on the Operator to collect the ‘tax’ at a rate of 1% from the supplier. This shall be done by the Operator by paying the supplier, the price of the product/services, less the tax, calculated at the rate of 1%. The said amount will be calculated on the net value of the goods/services supplied through the portal of the Operator.” With an example, the CBIC has further clarified thus: [50]“Suppose a certain product is sold at Rs. 1000/- through an Operator by a seller. The Operator would deduct tax @ 1% of the net value of Rs. 1000/- i.e. Rs. 10/-. Let us have a look at the statutory provisions relating to TCS.” It has further been clarified that [51]“every e-commerce operator is required to collect tax where the supplier is supplying goods or services through e-commerce operator and consideration with respect to the supply is to be collected by the said e-commerce operator.”

C-10. Section 49 of the CGST Act mandates that GST dues are settled by utilizing the Electronic Cash Ledger and Electronic Credit Ledger on the official GST Portal. Section 12 to 14 of the CGST Act dictate the Time of Supply—which determines the exact point when the liability to pay GST arises, usually being the earlier of the date of invoice or the receipt of payment. However, in the case of Electronic Commerce executed by the Electronic Commerce Operator, Section 52(3) postulates that the amount collected under sub-section (1) shall be paid to the Government by the operator within ten days after the end of the month in which such collection is made, in such manner as may be prescribed. It is also clarified that [52]“(t)he amount collected by the operator is to be paid to appropriate government within 10 days after the end of the month in which the said amount was so collected.” The detailed analysis of Collection of Tax at Source is being given in the ensuing paragraphs.

C-11. In the matter of [53]In Re : Humble Mobile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 653 (A.A.R. - GST)], the Applicant operates a technology based electronic platform service called “DriveU” which seeks to provide drivers on demand to customers who wish to obtain the services of a driver. [here it is important to note that the customer has his own vehicle who avails of the services of the driver through the Applicant’s electronic platform for his journey]. The drivers offering their services on the DriveU platform are individuals and independent service providers who have opted to enlist themselves with DriveU. Clearly Applicant is working only as intermediary between drivers and car owners because neither Drivers are his employees nor they are owners of motor vehicles.

C-11.1 The activity of supply of the Applicant is that there are three supplies involved in the entire transactions - first supply is providing drivers to the consumers, second supply is that of e-commerce services to the drivers and the third supply is the provision of manpower service by the drivers to the consumers.

C-11.2 Regarding the first supply, i.e. providing drivers to the consumers, the Applicant is only acting as an intermediary through the e-commerce platform, wherein the consumers who are in need of drivers would log into the portal and select the driver. The drivers are listed in the e-commerce platform and the contract is between the drivers and the consumers, with the Applicant acting as a facilitator. In some cases, the consideration for this service is received by the Applicant on behalf of the drivers and the same would be paid to the drivers. Hence the Applicant is not providing drivers to the consumers but only facilitating the consumers and drivers to come together for provision of service.

C-11.3 Regarding the second supply, the supplier of services is the e-commerce platform service provider i.e. the Applicant in the instant case and the recipient of the supply of service is the driver as he is the person liable to pay the consideration. The Applicant is collecting service charges for the usage of electronic commerce platform like listing services, payment collection, etc., and the Applicant has admitted GST liability on the above service charges collected and declaring the same in the returns. This turnover is not subject matter of this application for advance ruling and hence not considered.

C-11.4 Regarding the third service, it is found that the Applicant is operating an electronic commerce platform and is providing a platform for the obtaining the services of drivers by the consumers. The drivers are not employees of the Applicant and are independent persons who provide the services to the consumers and the consumers are liable to pay the consideration for the services to the drivers. Further, the consumers have the option either to pay the consideration directly to the driver or make payment electronically to the Applicant and the Applicant makes the payment so collected to the drivers. The drivers, being independent persons, have the option to enter into the contract and the customers have the choice of the drivers, hence they act on principal-to-principal basis and the Applicant is only a facilitator for the supply of the services by the drivers to the customers and is charging a fee for the services provided from the drivers. The drivers are the suppliers of services which are separate supplies and the treatment of the taxability of this transaction is not a subject matter of the advance ruling. However, it is pertinent to note that Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not shift the liability of these services provided by the drivers from the drivers themselves to the e-commerce operator.

C-11.5 The Authority has held that the drivers are not employees of the Applicant and are also not hired by the Applicant. They are only listed on the portal of the Applicant and are providing their services on principal-to-principal basis and the consideration for the same is either directly received from the recipients of the service or indirectly through the Applicant. Further, the drivers are not supplying the services in their vehicles but are driving the vehicles belonging to the recipients of services and hence are not providing “services of transportation of passengers by a radio-taxi, motorcab, maxicab and motor cycle” but are providing manpower services namely “driving a motor vehicle services” which is not covered under item (i) of the Notification No. 17/2017-Central Tax, dated 28-6-2017.

C-11.6 On the issue whether the payments collected by the Applicant and paid to the drivers are liable to tax collection at source under Section 52 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority has held that to the extent of the consideration collected by the Applicant for the services provided by the drivers to the consumers, on behalf of the drivers, the same shall be liable to collection of tax at source under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, it is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 52 of the CGST Act, 2017 had come into force from 1st October, 2018 by virtue of Notification No. 51/2018-Central Tax, dated 13-10-2018. It is also pertinent to note that every person who supplies goods or services or both [other than those supplies specified under sub-section (5) of Section 9], through an e-commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under Section 52 is liable to be registered compulsorily under Section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.

D. COMPULSORY REGISTRATION OF SUPPLIER AS WELL AS OPERATOR:

D-1. Section 22(1) inter alia says that every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees, or ten lakh rupees for special category States. However, Section 24(ix) inter alia says by virtue of non-obstante clause that sub-section (1) of section 22 does not apply to the persons, who supply goods or services or both (i.e. suppliers of goods or services or both) through electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under Section 52, shall be required to be registered under this Act. It means that the supplier of goods or services or both is also required to be registered, if he effects such supplies through electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under Section 52 irrespective of his aggregate turnover in a financial year.

D-2. The Department has also clarified that [54]“(a)s per Section 24(ix) of the CGST Act, 2017, every person supplying goods through an e-commerce operator shall be mandatorily required to register irrespective of the value of supply made by him. However, a person supplying services, other than supplier of services under Section 9 (5) of the CGST Act, 2017, through an e-commerce platform are exempted from obtaining compulsory registration provided their aggregate turnover does not exceed INR 20 lakhs (or INR 10 lakhs in case of specified special category States) in a financial year. Government has issued the notification No. 65/2017 – Central Tax dated 15th November, 2017 in this regard.” The Central Government on the recommendations of the Council, by this notification, has specified [55]“the persons making supplies of services, other than supplies specified under sub-section (5) of section 9 of the said Act through an electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under section 52 of the said Act, and having an aggregate turnover, to be computed on all India basis, not exceeding an amount of twenty lakh rupees in a financial year, as the category of persons exempted from obtaining registration under the said Act.” Further, it is clarified that [56]“the aggregate value of such supplies, to be computed on all India basis, should not exceed an amount of ten lakh rupees in case of "special category States" as specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 22 of the said Act, read with clause (iii) of the Explanation to the said section. [57]“Since such suppliers are not liable for registration, e-commerce operators are not required to collect TCS on supply of services being made by such suppliers through their portal.”

D-3. Similarly, clause (x) of Section 24 envisages that every electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under section 52 shall be required to be registered under this Act. Further, sub-section (5) of Section 5 of IGST along with proviso clauses appended therewith is analogous to sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the CGST Act along with proviso clauses appended therewith. First proviso clause appended with these sub-sections postulates that where an electronic commerce operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory, any person representing such electronic commerce operator for any purpose in the taxable territory shall be liable to pay tax. Second proviso clause envisages that where an electronic commerce operator does not have a physical presence in the taxable territory and also he does not have a representative in the said territory, such electronic commerce operator shall appoint a person in the taxable territory for the purpose of paying tax and such person shall be liable to pay tax. It follows from a conjoint reading of Section 24(x) of the CGST Act and Section 9(5) of CGST Act / Section 5(5) of the IGST Act along with proviso clauses appended with these sections that the Electronic Commerce Operator, being liable to pay tax, is required to be registered in each State / UT as the obligation for collecting TCS would be there for every intra-State or inter-State supply.

D-4. In this regard, the GST Council has also clarified that [58]“registration for TCS would be required in each State / UT as the obligation for collecting TCS would be there for every intra-State or inter-State supply. In order to facilitate the obtaining of registration in each State / UT, the e-commerce operator may declare the Head Office as its place of business for obtaining registration in that State / UT where it does not have physical presence. It may be noted that each State/UT has indicated one administrative jurisdiction where all e-commerce operators having business (but not having physical presence) in that State/UT shall register. The proper officer for the purpose of registration of ECOs has also been notified by each State/UT.” So far as an Electronic Commerce Operator who is already registered under GST and have GSTIN is concerned, whether he is required to have separate registration for TCS as well. In this regard, it has been clarified that [59]“E-Commerce operator has to obtain separate registration for TCS irrespective of the fact whether e-Commerce operator is already registered under GST as a supplier or otherwise and has GSTIN.”

D-5. So far as a person who is registered under sub-section (1) of Section 10 related to Composition Scheme is concerned, it may be noted that [60]“(t)he registered person shall be eligible to opt under sub-section (1), if he is not engaged in making any supply of services through an electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under section 52.” Conversely, it means that a registered person who is paying GST under Composition Scheme enshrined under Section 10(1) is precluded from making supplies of services through an electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax under Section 52. In simple words, a person registered under Composition Scheme cannot supply his services through Electronic Commerce Operator. In an FAQ - Whether TCS is to be collected in respect of supplies made by the composition taxpayer, the GST Council has also clarified that [61]“(a)s per section 10(2)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, a composition taxpayer cannot make supplies through e-commerce operator. Thus, question of collecting TCS in respect of supplies made by the composition taxpayer does not arise.” Likewise, [62]“TCS is not required to be collected on supplies on which the recipient is required to pay tax on reverse charge basis.” Similarly, [63]“TCS is not required to be collected on exempt supplies.”

D-6. [64]“Where registered supplier is supplying goods or services through a foreign e-commerce operator to a customer in India, such foreign e-commerce operator would be liable to collect TCS on such supply and would be required to obtain registration in each State / UT. It may be noted that each State/UT has indicated one administrative jurisdiction where all e-commerce operators having business (but not having physical presence) in that State/UT shall register. The proper officer for the purpose of registration of ECOs has also been notified by each State/UT. If the foreign e-commerce operator does not have physical presence in a particular State / UT, he may appoint an agent on his behalf.”

D-7. The procedure has been prescribed under Rule 12(1) of the CGST Rules for grant of registration to a person who collects tax at source, which inter alia postulates that [65]a person required to collect tax at source in accordance with the provisions of section 52 shall electronically submit an application, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, in FORM GST REG-07 for the grant of registration through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner. Further, [66]a person applying for registration to collect tax in accordance with the provisions of section 52, in a State or Union territory where he does not have a physical presence, shall mention the name of the State or Union territory in PART A of the application in FORM GST REG-07 and mention the name of the State or Union territory in PART B thereof in which the principal place of business is located which may be different from the State or Union territory mentioned in PART A.

D-8. After filing of the application in FORM GST REG-07 by the operator [67]“(t)he proper officer may grant registration after due verification and issue a certificate of registration in FORM GST REG-06 within a period of three working days from the date of submission of the application.” However, [68]“(w)here, on a request made in writing by a person to whom a registration has been granted under sub-rule (2) or upon an enquiry or pursuant to any other proceeding under the Act, the proper officer is satisfied that a person to whom a certificate of registration in FORM GST REG-06 has been issued is no longer liable to ----- collect tax at source under section 52, the said officer may cancel the registration issued under sub-rule (2) and such cancellation shall be communicated to the said person electronically in FORM GST REG-08” and [69]“the proper officer shall follow the procedure as provided in rule 22 for the cancellation of registration.”

D-5. In the matter of [70]Inre : ChangeJar Technologies (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) [(2024) 16 Centax 349 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)], the Applicant is providing online micro-saving and investment platform by way of application named "Jar" and have entered into distribution agreement with Digital Gold India Private Limited for offering sale of DGIPL's gold on its platform. The Applicant collects commission as percentage of value of digital gold sold through its platform and entire sale proceeds are paid directly to seller of Digital gold through Escrow account. The Applicant sought advance ruling regarding whether assessee will be required to obtain registration as E-commerce operator. The Applicant entered into distribution agreement with Digital Gold India Private Limited for offering sale of DGIPL's gold on its platform. The Applicant sought advance ruling regarding whether activity undertaken by Applicant of collecting such commission would qualify him as 'Agent' for purpose of GST law and is therefore not covered by applicability of Notification No. 52/2018. It has been held by the Advance Ruling Authority that the Applicant is not an agent of DGIPL, as per their own Distribution Agreement under clause 9.4, therefore, the Applicant qualifies as electronic commerce operator and is not agent of third party supplier M/s. DGIPL, and hence is covered under Notification No. 52/2018 Central Tax. It has further been held that since sale of DGIPL products happen through Applicant’s online platform, Applicant squarely fits into definition and qualifies to be Electronic Commerce Operator. The Applicant, being electronic commerce operator, is required to collect tax at source under section 52 of CGST Act, 2017 and thus is liable to be registered compulsorily under section 24(x) of CGST Act, 2017 read with provisions of Rule 12 of CGST Rules 2017.

E. PERIODICAL STATEMENTS TO BE FILED BY THE OPERATOR:

E-1. Monthly Statement is to be filed by every operator under sub-section (4) of Section 52, which postulates that [71]“(e)very operator who collects the amount specified in sub-section (1) shall furnish a statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services or both returned through it, and the amount collected under sub-section (1) during a month, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, within ten days after the end of such month.” However, [72]“the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by notification, extend the time limit for furnishing the statement for such class of registered persons as may be specified therein.” Further, [73]“any extension of time limit notified by the Commissioner of State tax or the Commissioner of Union territory tax shall be deemed to be notified by the Commissioner.” Form and manner of submission of monthly statement of supplies through an e-commerce operator has been specified under Rule 67(1) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (in short “the CGST Rules), which says that “(e)very electronic commerce operator required to collect tax at source under section 52 shall furnish a statement in FORM GSTR-8 electronically on the common portal, either directly or from a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner, containing details of supplies effected through such operator and the amount of tax collected as required under sub-section (1) of section 52.” Further, [74]“(t)he details of tax collected at source under sub-section (1) of section 52 furnished by the operator under sub-rule (1) shall be made available electronically to each of the registered suppliers on the common portal after filing of FORM GSTR-8 for claiming the amount of tax collected in his electronic cash ledger after validation.” It is also clarified that [75]“every operator is required to furnish a statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services returned through it, and the amount collected by it as TCS during a month within 10 days after the end of such month in FORM GSTR-8. The operator is also required to file an annual statement by 31st day of December following the end of the financial year in which the tax was collected in FORM GSTR-9B.”

E-2. So far as form and manner of ascertaining details of inward supplies is concerned, [76]“(t)he details of tax collected at source furnished by an e-commerce operator under section 52 in FORM GSTR-8 shall be made available to the concerned person in Part C of FORM GSTR 2A electronically through the common portal.” [77]“The details of supplies furnished by every operator under sub-section (4) shall be matched with the corresponding details of outward supplies furnished by the concerned supplier registered under this Act in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.” Further, [78]“(e)very operator who collects the amount specified in sub-section (1) shall furnish an annual statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services or both returned through it, and the amount collected under the said sub-section during the financial year, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, before the thirty first day of December following the end of such financial year.” However, [79]“the Commissioner may, on the recommendations of the Council and for reasons to be recorded in writing, by notification, extend the time limit for furnishing the annual statement for such class of registered persons as may be specified therein.” Further, [80]“any extension of time limit notified by the Commissioner of State tax or the Commissioner of Union territory tax shall be deemed to be notified by the Commissioner.”

E-3. [81]“If any operator after furnishing a statement under sub-section (4) discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the statement to be furnished for the month during which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed, subject to payment of interest, as specified in sub-section (1) of section 50.” However, [82]“no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the thirtieth day of November following the end of the financial year or the actual date of furnishing of the relevant annual statement, whichever is earlier.” Further, as far as late filing of return of outward supplies is concerned, it may be noted that [83]any registered person who fails to furnish the details of outward supplies required under section 52 by the due date shall pay a late fee of one hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum amount of five thousand rupees.

F. OUTPUT TAX LIABILITY OF SUPPLIER UNDER SECTION 52 OF THE CGST ACT:

F-1. As noted above, sub-section (4) of Section 52 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 67 postulates that every operator who collects the amount specified under sub-section (1) shall furnish a statement in FORM GSTR-8 electronically on the common portal. However, [84]“(w)here the details of outward supplies furnished by the operator under sub-section (4) do not match with the corresponding details furnished by the supplier under section 37 or section 39, the discrepancy shall be communicated to both persons in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.” The manner and time for matching the details furnished by the Electronic Commerce Operator with the details furnished by the supplier have been specified under Rule 87 of the CGST Rules, which inter alia states that the details relating to the supplies made through an e-Commerce operator, regarding (a) State of place of supply; and (b) net taxable value, as declared in FORM GSTR-8, shall be matched with the corresponding details declared by the supplier in FORM GSTR-1, as amended in FORM GSTR-1A, if any. However, [85]“where the time limit for furnishing FORM GSTR-1 under section 37 has been extended, the date of matching of the above-mentioned details shall be extended accordingly.” Further [86]“the Commissioner may, on the recommendations of the Council, by order, extend the date of matching to such date as may be specified therein.”

F-2. [87]“The amount in respect of which any discrepancy is communicated under sub-section (9) and which is not rectified by the supplier in his valid return or the operator in his statement for the month in which discrepancy is communicated, shall be added to the output tax liability of the said supplier, where the value of outward supplies furnished by the operator is more than the value of outward supplies furnished by the supplier, in his return for the month succeeding the month in which the discrepancy is communicated in such manner as may be prescribed.” Further, the tax liability rests with the supplier of goods or services or both, inasmuch as, [88]“(t)he concerned supplier, in whose output tax liability any amount has been added under subsection (10), shall pay the tax payable in respect of such supply along with interest, at the rate specified under sub-section (1) of section 50 on the amount so added from the date such tax was due till the date of its payment.”

F-3. Section 49(7) of the CGST Act prescribes Electronic Liability Register for recording the liabilities of a taxable person thus: “All liabilities of a taxable person under this Act shall be recorded and maintained in an electronic liability register in such manner as may be prescribed.” The Electronic Liability Register has been prescribed under Rule 85 of the CGST Rules, which states that [89]“(t)he electronic liability register specified under sub-section (7) of section 49 shall be maintained in FORM GST PMT-01 for each person liable to pay tax, interest, penalty, late fee or any other amount on the common portal and all amounts payable by him shall be debited to the said register.” The amount of tax, interest, late fee or any other amount payable by the registered person shall be made by debiting the electronic liability register. However, subject to the provisions of section 49, section 49A and section 49B, [90]“payment of every liability by a registered person as per his return shall be made by debiting the electronic credit ledger maintained as per rule 86 or the electronic cash ledger maintained as per rule 87 and the electronic liability register shall be credited accordingly.” Further, sub-rule (4) thereof inter alia postulates that the amount collected under section 52, or any amount payable towards interest, penalty, fee or any other amount under the Act shall be paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger maintained as per rule 87 and the electronic liability register shall be credited accordingly.

G. NOTICE TO BE SERVED TO THE OPERATOR BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ONLY:

G-1. Under Section 52 of the CGST Act, if any notice is issued to the operator, the same can be issued by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner. Sub-section (12) of Section 52 mandates that “(a)ny authority not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner may serve a notice, either before or during the course of any proceedings under this Act, requiring the operator to furnish such details relating to - (a) supplies of goods or services or both effected through such operator during any period; or (b) stock of goods held by the suppliers making supplies through such operator in the godowns or warehouses, by whatever name called, managed by such operator and declared as additional places of business by such suppliers, as may be specified in the notice.” Further, [91]“(e)very operator on whom a notice has been served under sub-section (12) shall furnish the required information within fifteen working days of the date of service of such notice.” Thus, there are certain additional powers available to tax officers under the CGST Act, as clarified by the Department, stating that [92]“(a)s per section 52(12) of the CGST Act, 2017, any authority not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner may serve a notice requiring the operator to furnish the details of their supplies of goods or services or both as well as stock of goods held by the suppliers within 15 working days of the date of service of such notice.” If the Operator fails to furnish the required information, he is liable to penal action under Section 122 of the CGST Act. In this regard, it is manifestly clear from the subsequent sub-section, which says: [93]“Any person who fails to furnish the information required by the notice served under subsection (12) shall, without prejudice to any action that may be taken under section 122, be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.”

G-2. Rule 142 of the CGST Rules relates to notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the CGST Act. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 142 inter alia provides that the notice under Section 52 or Section 122 shall be issued by the proper officer electronically in FORM GST DRC-01 to the operator. Further [94]“(w)here an amount of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount payable by a person under section 52 --- or section 122 --, has been paid by the said person through an intimation in FORM GST DRC-03 under sub-rule (2), instead of crediting the said amount in the electronic liability register in FORM GST PMT-01 against the debit entry created for the said demand, the said person may file an application in FORM GST DRC-03A electronically on the common portal, and the amount so paid and intimated through FORM GST DRC-03 shall be credited in Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01 against the debit entry created for the said demand, as if the said payment was made towards the said demand on the date of such intimation made through FORM GST DRC-03.” These sub-rules also relate to the persons to whom notices are issued under section 73 or section 74 or section 74A or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130 of the CGST Act. [95]“The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the Notice for recovery.”

H. PENALTY ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE OPERATOR FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES:

H-1. Like other taxable persons, the Electronic Commerce Operator is also liable for penal action for the offences purported to have been done by him. In this regard, clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 122 and sub-section (1B) of this section are relevant for the purpose of imposing penalty under this section. So far as penalty for contravention of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 52 is concerned, it is stipulated that [96]“(w)here a taxable person who fails to collect tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 52, or collects an amount which is less than the amount required to be collected under the said sub-section or where he fails to pay to the Government the amount collected as tax under sub-section (3) of section 52, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or an amount equivalent to the tax evaded ----- or tax not collected under section 52 or short collected or collected but not paid to the Government or input tax credit availed of or passed on or distributed irregularly, or the refund claimed fraudulently, whichever is higher.”

H-2. Further, penalty for offences other than penalty specified under Section 122(1)(vi) is concerned, it is specified thus: [97]“Any electronic commerce operator, who is liable to collect tax at source under section 52, –

(i) allows a supply of goods or services or both through it by an unregistered person other than a person exempted from registration by a notification issued under this Act to make such supply;

(ii) allows an inter-State supply of goods or services or both through it by a person who is not eligible to make such inter-State supply; or

(iii) fails to furnish the correct details in the statement to be furnished under sub-section (4) of section 52 of any outward supply of goods effected through it by a person exempted from obtaining registration under this Act,

shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees, or an amount equivalent to the amount of tax involved had such supply been made by a registered person other than a person paying tax under section 10, whichever is higher.”

I. INTEREST WOULD BE APPLICABLE ON NON-COLLECTION OF TCS:

I-1. [98]“If any operator after furnishing a statement under sub-section (4) [of Section 52] discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the statement to be furnished for the month during which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed, subject to payment of interest, as specified in sub-section (1) of section 50”. However, [99]“no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the [100][thirtieth day of November] following the end of the financial year or the actual date of furnishing of the relevant annual statement, whichever is earlier.” Further, [101]”(e)very person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, but fails to pay the tax or any part thereof to the Government within the period prescribed, shall for the period for which the tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate, not exceeding eighteen per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council”.

I-2. It inter alia follows from these provisions that if any operator after furnishing a statement under sub-section (4) of Section 52 discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the statement to be furnished for the month during which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed, subject to payment of interest, as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 50. This does not apply to the cases where such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities. It has also been clarified that [102]“(a)s per section 52(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, interest is applicable on omission as well in case of incorrect particulars noticed. In such a case, interest is applicable since it is a case of omission. Further penalty under section 122(vi) of the CGST Act, 2017 would also be leviable.”

I-3. It may be noted that interest is charged for the amount withheld by the person liable to pay tax and also is charged for the period of delay, because it is compensatory in character. This assertion is fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Pratibha Processors supra, wherein the Apex Court has held that interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable, and also that the levy of interest is geared to actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of the delay in paying the tax on the due date.

J. CONCLUSION:

J-1. Levy of tax on Electronic Commerce Operator is entirely a new concept in Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Electronic Commerce means the supply of goods or services or both, including digital products over digital or electronic network. Similarly, Electronic Commerce Operator is a person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce. Thus, Electronic Commerce connects buyers and sellers using various electronic channels, such as, a website or social media, so that customers can find products and services of their choice. Further, the modalities of Electronic Commerce executed by the Electronic Commerce Operator are (i) Levy and Collection of Tax under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act; and (ii) Collection of Tax at Source under Section 52 of the CGST Act. Both works in different directions. As per Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, the tax on intra-State supplies shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator on specified categories of services, if such services are supplied through it, and all the provisions of the CGST Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services. Thus, Section 9(5) has some similarities with Reverse Charge Mechanism, which relates to supply of services only notified by the Government, such as, (i) services of transportation of passengers, (ii) short term accommodation services, (iii) house-keeping services, (iv) restaurant services, and (v) local delivery services, on which GST is to be paid by the Electronic Commerce Operator under Section 9(5) ibid instead of the actual suppliers of services, if these services are supplied through the Electronic Commerce Operator. However, under Section 52(1), every Electronic Commerce Operator, not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at specified rate of the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the Operator. This is called Tax Collected at Source (TCS). Net value of taxable supplies means “the aggregate value of taxable supplies of goods or services or both” minus “aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers”, i.e. value of returned / rejected goods or services by the buyer / consumer. In the case of Electronic Commerce executed by the Electronic Commerce Operator, the amount collected shall be paid to the Government by the operator within ten days after the end of the month in which such collection is made, in such manner as may be prescribed. The tax collected by the Operator shall be credited to the cash ledger of the supplier who has supplied the goods/services through the Operator. The supplier can claim credit of the tax collected and reflected in the return by the Operator in his [supplier’s] Electronic Cash Ledger. The said credit can be used at the time of discharge of tax liability by the actual supplier. It is also pertinent to mention here that payment of TCS through Input Tax Credit of Operator for depositing TCS as per Section 52 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not allowed. Every Electronic Commerce Operator who is required to collect tax at source under Section 52 shall be required to be registered under the Act. As per Section 24(ix) of the CGST Act, 2017, every person supplying goods through an E-commerce Operator shall be mandatorily required to register irrespective of the value of supply made by him. However, a person supplying services, other than supplier of services under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, through an e-commerce platform are exempted from obtaining compulsory registration provided their aggregate turnover does not exceed INR 20 lakhs (or INR 10 lakhs in case of specified special category States) in a financial year. Government has issued Notification No. 65/2017 – Central Tax dated 15th November, 2017 in this regard. E-Commerce Operator has to obtain separate registration for TCS irrespective of the fact whether E-Commerce Operator is already registered under GST as a supplier or otherwise and has GSTIN. As far as periodical returns are concerned, every Operator who collects the amount shall furnish a statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services or both returned through it, and the amount collected during a month, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, within ten days after the end of such month. Under Section 52 of the CGST Act, if any notice is issued to the Operator, the same can be issued by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner. Like other taxable persons, the Electronic Commerce Operator is also liable for penal action for the offences purported to have been done by him. In this regard, clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 122 and sub-section (1B) of this section are relevant for the purpose of imposing penalty under this section. If any Operator after furnishing a statement under sub-section (4) of Section 52 discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the statement to be furnished for the month during which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed, subject to payment of interest, as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 50.

[DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this Article are personal views of the Author.]

[1] . E-Book on e-Commerce Operators & GST (Version – 0.1) : September, 2024) published by NACIN, Andhra Pradesh Zonal Institute, Visakhapatnam

[2] . E-Book on e-Commerce Operators & GST (Version – 0.1) : September, 2024) published by NACIN, Andhra Pradesh Zonal Institute, Visakhapatnam.

[3] . Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act.

[4] . Section 2(52) of the CGST Act.

[5] . Section 2(102) of the CGST Act.

[6] . Explanation appended with Section 2(102) of the CGST Act.

[7] . TCS MECHANISM IN GST published by CBIC which is prepared by National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics.

[8] . Section 15(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

[9]. Substituted for “and motor cycle;’ by Notification No. 17/2021-Central Tax (Rate), dated 18.11.2021, w.e.f. 01.01.2022.

[10]. Substituted for “omnibus or any other motor vehicle” by Notification No. 16/2023-Central Tax (Rate), dated 19.10.2023, w.e.f. 20.10.2023.

[11]. Inserted by Notification No. 16/2023-Central Tax (Rate), dated 19.10.2023, w.e.f. 20.10.2023.

[12]. Inserted by Notification No. 23/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22.08.2017.

[13]. Inserted by Notification No. 17/2021 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 18.11.2021, w.e.f. 01.01.2022.

[14]. Inserted by Notification No. 17/2025-Central Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025, w.e.f. 22.09.2025.

[15] . Substituted for “and ‘motor cycle’ shall have the same meanings as assigned to them respectively in clauses (22), (25) and (26) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (59 of 1988).” by Notification No. 17/2021-Central Tax (Rate), dated 18.11.2021, w.e.f. 01.01.2022.

[16]. Substituted by Notification No. 8/2025-Central Tax (Rate), dated 16-1-2025, w.e.f. 01.04.2025. Prior to its substitution, clause (c) as inserted by Notification No. 17/2021-Central Tax (Rate), dated 18.11.2021, read as under :

“(c) specified premises means premises providing hotel accommodation service having declared tariff of any unit of accommodation above seven thousand five hundred rupees per unit per day or equivalent.”

[17]. Inserted by Notification No. 16/2023-Central Tax (Rate), dated 19-10-2023, w.e.f. 20.10.2023.

[18] . Section 20 of the IGST Act.

[19] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 38 of 2024, decided on 04-11-2024.

[20] . Order No. 11/WBAAR/2024-25 and Case No. WBAAR 14 of 2024, decided on 10-09-2024.

[21] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 36/2024, decided on 24-07-2024.

[22] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 31/2023, decided on 15-9-2023.

[23] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 36 of 2022, decided on 27-10-2022.

[24] . Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/48/2021 in Application No. Advance Ruling/SGST&CGST/2021/AR/26, decided on 27-8-2021

[25] . Advance Ruling No. 02/ARA/2024 in Application No. 84/2023, decided on 27-3-2024.

[26] . Order No. GST-ARA-32/2018-19/B-131-Mumbai, dated 23-10-2018 in Application No. 32.

[27] . Order No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/27 in Application No. Advance Ruling/SGST & CGST/2023/AR/40, decided on 12-08-2025.

[28] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 22/2021, dated 7-4-2021.

[29] . Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

[30] . Vide sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[31] . Notification No. 52/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dated 20.09.2018, as amended.

[32] . Substituted for "half percent" by Notification No. 15/20204-Central Tax, dated 10.07.2024, w.e.f. 10-7-2024.

[33] . Notification No.02/2018-Integrated Tax, dated 20.09.2018, as amended.

[34]. Substituted for "one percent." by Notification No. 1/2024-Integrated Tax, dated 10.07.2024, w.e.f. 10-7-2024.

[35] . Explanation clause appended with Section 52(1) of the CGST Act.

[36] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 11).

[37] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 20).

[38] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 21).

[39] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 13).

[40] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 17).

[41] . Vide Sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[42] . Vide Sub-section (7) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[43] . Rule 87(9) read with Rule 87(1) of the CGST Rules.

[44] . TCS Mechanism in GST published by CBIC which is prepared by National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics.

[45] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 23).

[46] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 19).

[47] . Vide Sub-section (11) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[48] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 24).

[49] . TCS Mechanism in GST published by CBIC which is prepared by National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics.

[50] . TCS Mechanism in GST published by CBIC which is prepared by National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics.

[51] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 6).

[52] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 22).

[53] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 58/2019, dated 19-9-2019.

[54] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 6).

[55] . Notification No. 65/2017 – Central Tax dated 15th November, 2017, as amended by Notification No. 6/2019 -Central Tax, dated 29.01.2019.

[56] . Proviso clause appended with Notification No. 65/2017 – Central Tax dated 15th November, 2017, as amended by Notification No. 6/2019 - Central Tax, dated 29.01.2019.

[57] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 7).

[58] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 8).

[59] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 10).

[60] . Section 10(2)(d) of the CGST Act.

[61] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 16).

[62] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 15).

[63]. FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 14).

[64] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 9).

[65] . Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the CGST Rules.

[66] . Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 12 of the CGST Rules.

[67] . Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the CGST Rules.

[68] . Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the CGST Rules.

[69] . Proviso clause appended with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the CGST Rules.

[70] . Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG/08/2024, decided on 28-02-2024.

[71] . Sub-section (4) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[72] . First proviso clause appended with Sub-section (4) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[73] . 2nd proviso appended with sub-section (4) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[74] . Sub-rule (2) of Rule 67 of the CGST Rules.

[75] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 25).

[76] . Sub-rule (5) of Rule 60 of the CGST Rules.

[77] . Sub-section (8) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[78] . Sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[79] . First proviso clause appended with sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[80] . Second proviso clause appended with sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[81] . Sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[82] . Proviso clause appended with sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[83] . Sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the CGST Act.

[84] . Sub-section (9) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[85] . 1st proviso clause appended with Rule 87 of the CGST Rules.

[86] . 2nd proviso clause appended with Rule 87 of the CGST Rules.

[87] . Sub-section (10) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[88] . Sub-section (11) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[89] . Sub-rule (1) of Rule 85 of the CGST Rules.

[90] . Sub-rule (3) of Rule 85 of the CGST Rules.

[91] . Sub-section (13) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[92] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 29).

[93] . Sub-section (14) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[94] . Sub-rule (2B) of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules.

[95] . Sub-rule (6) of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules.

[96] . Clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 122 of the CGST Act.

[97] . Sub-section (1B) of Section 122 of the CGST Act.

[98] . Sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[99] . Proviso clause appended with sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the CGST Act.

[100] . Substituted vide sec 112 of The Finance Act, 2022 (No. 06 of 2022), notified through Notification No.18/2022 - CT dated 28.09.2022, w.e.f. 01.10.2022, prior to its substitution, it was read as: “due date for furnishing of statement for the month of September”.

[101] . Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

[102] . FAQ on TCS under GST (Updated as on 30.11.2018) dated 28th September, 2018 by Law Committee GST Council (FAQ No. 26).

By G.R Singh , IRS (Retd)