top of page

Forum Posts

Bijoy P Pulipra
Oct 27, 2023
In Goods and Service Tax
Section 2(68) of CGST defines 'job work' to mean any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person, and the expression 'job worker' shall be construed accordingly. In terms of the definition, any treatment or process done on goods belonging to another person is job work where the applicant is not just doing something on the critical components. As per Circular No. 38/12/2018, dated 26-3-2018, issued by CBEC, it is clarified that, in addition to the goods received from the principal, the job worker can use his goods for providing the services of job work.   In the case of Job work, the services are performed on physical inputs owned by units other than the units providing the services. They are characterised as outsourced operations of a manufacturing process or a complete outsourced manufacturing process. Under job work services, the output is not owned by the units providing this service. Therefore, the value of the services is based on the service charge paid, not the value of the goods manufactured. The job worker, as a supplier of services, is liable to pay GST if he is liable to be registered. He shall issue an invoice at the time of supply of the services.   If no treatment or process is done on the components supplied by the applicant and they are used as a part of the manufacture of a different component, the said activity done by the Service Provider is of a composite supply of goods and services with the manufacturing services of assembling integrating and testing of the final product being the principal supply and shall not be deemed as ‘Job Work’.
Supplying components to manufacture without any treatment or process is a job work? content media
0
0
4
Bijoy P Pulipra
Jul 07, 2023
In Taxation
If a person sells merely leaves or fruits of the trees or even branches of the trees, it would be difficult (subject to the special exemption under section 4(3) (viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) to hold that the realisation is not of the nature of income. Where the trunks are cut so that the stumps remain intact and capable of regeneration, receipts from the sale of the trunks would be in the nature of income. It is true that the tree is a part of the land. But by selling a part of the trunk, the assessee does not necessarily realize a part of his capital. It need not be considered whether in case there is a sale of the trees with the roots so that there is no possibility of regeneration; it may be said that the realization is in the nature of capital. Do you think the above legal conclusion is logical?
2
2
109

Bijoy P Pulipra

Admin
More actions

© 2023 by Artis Law House. 

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
bottom of page