GST on Asian Development Banks and International Finance Corporation

GST on Asian Development Banks and International Finance Corporation

[toc]

Introduction

GST position of both the Asian Development Banks and the International Finance Corporation has been clarified by the board vide circular no. 83/02/2019-GST dated 1st January, 2019.

1. GST on Asian Development Banks (ADB)

  • The Asian Development Banks Act, 1966 specifically provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, the Bank, its assets, properties, income and its operations and transactions shall be exempt from all the taxation and from all the customs duties.
  • Further, the Act also exempts the Bank from any obligation for payment, withholding or collection of any tax or duty.
  • Clarification by the board
    In view of above, it has been clarified that the Asian Development Bank are exempt from GST. Further it has also been clarified that the exemption is available only to services provided by ADB, however, any entity appointed by or working on behalf of the ADB will be liable to pay GST.

2. GST on International Finance Corporation

  • The International Finance Corporation Act, 1958 also provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, the Corporation, its assets, properties, income and its operations and transactions authorized by the Agreement shall be exempt from all the taxation and from all the customs duties.
  • Further, the Act also exempts the Corporation from the liability for the collection or payment of any tax or duty.
  • Clarification by the board
    In view of above, it has been clarified that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) are exempt from GST. Further it has also been clarified that the exemption is available only to services provided by IFC, however, any entity appointed by or working on behalf of the IFC will be liable to pay GST.

Banking company is liable to pay GST on the entire value of service charges

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and VJM & Associates LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Related Post
MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form
Others
CA. Kavit Vijay

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

As per Section 29(1A) of Companies Act read with Rule 9A of The Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, every unlisted public company shall ensure that before issuance of any securities entire holding of securities of its promoters, directors, key managerial personnel has been dematerialised in accordance with provisions of the Depositories Act 1996. Further,  every shareholder of an unlisted public company is required to dematerialise its securities before transfer, if such transfer is made on or after 2nd October, 2018.

Read More »
Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest
Judgements
CA. Sachin Jindal

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through solar plants. The GST returns filed by the petitioner for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2019 were subject to audit. The petitioner was informed about tax liability during audit proceedings on account of wrong availment of ITC and ITC availed with respect to exempted supply. Upon receipt of initial audit observation, the petitioner discharged the entire tax liability alongwith interest. The final audit report was issued much after payment of GST liability. Post audit, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 74 of CGST Act and confirmed the demand through DRC-07. The petitioner contended that it falls under purview of Section 73(1) and 73(5) of CGST Act and therefore, SCN under section 74 is not sustainable. Whereas, the respondent contended that this is the case of fraud and willful misstatement.

Read More »

V J M & Associates LLP

Contact Us

X