☐ Has the supply been identified specifically? ☐ Has Schedule II / III classification been verified? ☐ Has alcohol / petroleum carve-out been considered? ☐ Has value been determined under s. 15 ? ☐ Has applicable rate been determined per…
9
☐ Has the supply been identified specifically? ☐ Has Schedule II / III classification been verified? ☐ Has alcohol / petroleum carve-out been considered? ☐ Has value been determined under s. 15 ? ☐ Has applicable rate been determined per…
Section 9 levy compliance — checklist (19 items)
Section 9 levy compliance — checklist (19 items)
☐ Has the supply been identified specifically?
☐ Has Schedule II / III classification been verified?
☐ Has alcohol / petroleum carve-out been considered?
☐ Has value been determined under s. 15?
☐ Has applicable rate been determined per Notification?
☐ Has time of supply been determined?
☐ Has RCM applicability been verified (sub-s. 3 / 4 / 5)?
☐ For RCM, has Notification specificity been verified?
☐ For e-commerce, has ECO liability been verified?
☐ Has tax been computed (value × rate)?
☐ Has ITC framework been coordinated?
☐ Has Mohit Minerals constitutional discipline been applied for cross-border?
☐ Has documentary trail of levy analysis been preserved?
☐ Has Vatika prospective-operation been applied for amendments?
☐ Has Mafatlal procedural-fairness framework been observed?
☐ Has Bharti Airtel substance-over-form discipline been applied?
☐ Has audit-defensibility through levy file been ensured?
☐ Has CGST + SGST coordination been verified?
☐ Has the file been reviewed for audit-defensibility?
Worked examples — five live scenarios
Example 1 — RCM on legal services
Facts: Company receives legal services from advocate. Advocate's fee Rs. 2 lakh. Notification 13/2017-CT(R) entry 2.
Analysis: Legal services by advocate to business entity — RCM under s. 9(3) read with Notification 13/2017. Company (recipient) pays tax. Rate 18% — Rs. 36,000 (CGST 9% + SGST 9% for intra-State). Self-invoice required under s. 31(3)(f). ITC available subject to s. 16(2) conditions.
Result: RCM operates. Company self-pays + claims ITC.
Example 2 — Ocean freight RCM (post-Mohit Minerals)
Facts: CIF importer receives goods. Ocean freight component of import price. Pre-2022, Notification imposed RCM on ocean freight. Mohit Minerals (2022) struck down.
Analysis: Post-Mohit Minerals, RCM on ocean freight unsustainable. CIF importer not liable for separate RCM on freight component. Practitioner advice — historical periods may have refund claims if RCM was paid; track applicable framework.
Result: No separate RCM on ocean freight post-Mohit Minerals.
Example 3 — Restaurant through ECO
Facts: Restaurant operates through food-delivery aggregator (Zomato / Swiggy). Supply of restaurant service to customer.
Analysis: FA 2021 amendment — restaurant services through ECO subject to ECO liability under s. 9(5). ECO pays tax. Notification 17/2017-CT(R) framework. Restaurant rate 5% (without ITC) applies. ECO collects + remits.
Result: ECO liability operates. Restaurant's compliance reduced.
Example 4 — Supply within Schedule III
Facts: Transfer of going concern (TOGC) — supply of entire business as going concern.
Analysis: Schedule III item — services by way of transfer of going concern, as a whole or independent part — NOT a supply. No GST under s. 9. Conditions of going-concern test apply — substantially transferring activity, recipient continuing business.
Result: Outside GST. Schedule III carve-out applies.
Example 5 — Petroleum supply (currently outside)
Facts: Refinery supplies diesel to dealer. Diesel supply made in 2025.
Analysis: Petroleum products (HSD) — sub-s. (2) deferred levy. Not yet notified for GST. Central Excise Act 1944 continues to apply. State VAT at retail level. Multi-framework analysis. Future Council decision may bring petroleum within GST.
Result: Outside CGST. CE Act + State VAT framework operates.
Planning and litigation strategy
Litigation defence
Cross-references