Scope of principal and del-credere agent relationship under CGST Act – CBEC Clarification
F. No. 20/16/04/2018- GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 5th November, 2018
The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/ Principal Commissioners/
Commissioners of Central Tax (All)
The Principal Directors General/ Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Post issuance of circular No. 57/31/2018-GST dated 4th September, 2018 from F. No. CBEC/20/16/4/2018-GST, various representations have been received from the trade and industry, as well as from the field formations regarding the scope and ambit of principal agent relationship under GST in the context of del-credere agent (hereinafter referred to as “DCA”). In order to clarify these issues and to ensure uniformity of implementation across field formations, the Board, in exercise of its powers conferred under section 168 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) hereby clarifies the issues in succeeding paras.
2. In commercial trade parlance, a DCA is a selling agent who is engaged by a principal to assist in supply of goods or services by contacting potential buyers on behalf of the principal. The factor that differentiates a DCA from other agents is that the DCA guarantees the payment to the supplier. In such scenarios where the buyer fails to make payment to the principal by the due date, DCA makes the payment to the principal on behalf of the buyer (effectively providing an insurance against default by the buyer), and for this reason the commission paid to the DCA may be relatively higher than that paid to a normal agent. In order to guarantee timely payment to the supplier, the DCA can resort to various methods including extending short-term transaction-based loans to the buyer or paying the supplier himself and recovering the amount from the buyer with some interest at a later date. This loan is to be repaid by the buyer along with an interest to the DCA at a rate mutually agreed between DCA and buyer. Concerns have been expressed regarding the valuation of supplies from Principal to recipient where the payment for such supply is being discharged by the recipient through the loan provided by DCA or by the DCA himself. Issues arising out of such loan arrangement have been examined and the clarifications on the same are as below:
| Sl. No |
Issue | Clarification |
| 1. | Whether a DCA falls under the ambit of agent under Para 3 of Schedule I of the CGST Act? | As already clarified vide circular No. 57/31/2018-GST dated 4th September, 2018, whether or not the DCA will fall under the ambit of agent under Para 3 of Schedule I of the CGST Act depends on the following possible scenarios: |
| 2. | Whether the temporary short-term transaction based loan extended by the DCA to the recipient (buyer), for which interest is charged by the DCA, is to be included in the value of goods being supplied by the supplier (principal) where DCA is not an agent under Para 3 of Schedule I of the CGST Act? |
In such a scenario following activities are taking place:
1. Supply of goods from supplier (principal) to recipient; 2. Supply of agency services from DCA to the supplier or the recipient or both; 3. Supply of extension of loan services by the DCA to the recipient. It is clarified that in cases where the DCA is not an agent under Para 3 of Schedule I of the CGST Act, the temporary short-term transaction based loan being provided by DCA to the buyer is a supply of service by the DCA to the recipient on Principal to Principal basis and is an independent supply. Therefore, the interest being charged by the DCA would not form part of the value of supply of goods supplied (to the buyer) by the supplier. It may be noted that vide notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 (S. No. 27), services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances in so far as the consideration is represented by way of interest or discount (other than interest involved in credit card services) has been exempted. |
| 3. | Where DCA is an agent under Para 3 of Schedule I of the CGST Act and makes payment to the principal on behalf of the buyer and charges interest to the buyer for delayed payment along with the value of goods being supplied, whether the interest will form a part of the value of supply of goods also or not? |
In such a scenario following activities are taking place: 1. Supply of goods by the supplier (principal) to the DCA; 2. Further supply of goods by the DCA to the recipient; 3. Supply of agency services by the DCA to the supplier or the recipient or both; 4. Extension of credit by the DCA to the recipient. It is clarified that in cases where the DCA is an agent under Para 3 of Schedule I of the CGST Act, the temporary short-term transaction based credit being provided by DCA to the buyer no longer retains its character of an independent supply and is subsumed in the supply of the goods by the DCA to the recipient. It is emphasised that the activity of extension of credit by the DCA to the recipient would not be considered as a separate supply as it is in the context of the supply of goods made by the DCA to the recipient. It is further clarified that the value of the interest charged for such credit would be required to be included in the value of supply of goods by DCA to the recipient as per clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the CGST Act. |
3. It is requested that suitable trade notices may be issued to publicize the contents of this Circular.
4. Difficulty, if any, in implementation of the above instructions may please be brought to the notice of the Board. Hindi version would follow.
(Upender Gupta)
Commissioner (GST)
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…