InTouch Australia India

Asia Pacific VAT/GST Alert
InTouch
with indirect tax news
Issue 02/14
• Notifications/Circulars for VAT
• VAT case laws
• Service Tax case laws
Welcome to issue 02/14 of InTouch*
which covers developments in VAT/GST
in Asia Pacific during the period April
2014 to June 2014.
• Implementation of VAT for exporting
garments, textiles, footwear, bags,
handbags and headwear
• VAT on import and supply of certain
agricultural products
• VAT on contractors supplying rice for
export
New Zealand
Please feel free to reach out to any of the
PwC contacts on the back of this issue.
China
Singapore
Australia
• GST rulings
• GST Cases update
Cambodia
• Telecommunications sector joins B2V pilot
program
• Simplified VAT levy rate structure
India
• Hire firm security bonds
Philippines
• Application for Value-Added Tax (VAT)
Refund/Credit under Section 112 of the
Tax Code
• E-tax guide on the attribution of input tax
Vietnam
• New decree and circular on invoicing
Australia
GST Rulings
GST Cases Update
• GSTR 2014/D1: This ruling explains the
Commissioner’s preliminary views on the
GST consequences of incentive payments
made by motor vehicle manufacturers,
importers and distributors to motor vehicle
dealers. It is intended to provide practical
guidance to the motor vehicle industry
following the decision of the Full Federal
Court in AP Group Limited v Commissioner
of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 105.
MBI Properties Pty Limited v
Commissioner of Taxation [2013]
FCAFC 112
• GSTD 2014/D1: This ruling sets out the
Commissioner’s preliminary view that the
supply of a credit card facility will be GSTfree to the extent it is intended that the
cardholder will use the facility to undertake
a transaction when they are physically
outside Australia.
• GSTD 2014/D2: This ruling sets out the
Commissioner’s preliminary view that
payments made by a vendor to a purchaser
of real property when the rent received falls
below the rental yield guaranteed by the
vendor, give rise to an adjustment event
under Division 19 in the GST Act.
The Commissioner has been granted special leave
to appeal to the High Court against the decision
of the Full Federal Court. The Full Federal Court
decided that the taxpayer (MBI) was not required
to make increasing adjustments under Division
135 in the GST legislation in relation to the
acquisition of residential units as part of a GSTfree going concern.
Living Choice Australia Limited v
Commissioner of Taxation [2014]
AATA 168
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
affirmed the Commissioner’s objection decision
regarding calculation of input tax credits in
relation to the construction and operation of
retirement villages which provide independent
living units (ILUs) for occupation by their
residents. The taxpayer’s entitlement to input
tax credits turned on the extent to which the
“residential premises” (as defined) supplied to
the residents included communal facilities and
services.
Lighthouse Financial Advisers (Townsville)
Pty Ltd [2014] AATA 301
The AAT found that payment made in settlement
of a legal matter was not consideration for a
taxable supply.
For more information, please contact:
Peter Konidaris
[email protected]
+61 3 8603 1168
Cambodia
Implementation of VAT for exporting
garments, textiles, footwear, bags,
handbags and headwear
The Ministry of Economy and Finance (“MEF”)
has issued Prakas No. 311 MEF.Prk dated
19 March 2014 on the implementation of
VAT for supporting industries or contractors
supplying products or services for the purpose
of exporting the garments, textiles, footwear,
bags and handbags and headwear. The
supporting industries and contractors are
separately defined in the Prakas. The Prakas
replaces Prakas No. 298 MEF.Prk dated 17
June 2005, which covered only the garment,
textile and footwear industries.
The VAT implications for supporting industries
or contractors that supply products or services
to the main industries for the purpose of
exporting such products are as follows:
Input VAT
• For the supporting industries, VAT on the
import of production inputs and equipment
used to produce supplies for the main
industries is borne by the government. If
an entity intends to sell such production
inputs and equipment, it must notify the
Customs and Excise Department (“GDCE”)
of its intention in advance. Any sale of the
production input and equipment locally will
be subject to VAT at 10%.
• However, the same incentives do not apply to
contractors. Any imports or local purchases
of production inputs and equipment used to
produce supplies for the main industries are
subject to 10% VAT.
Output VAT
• For supporting industries and contractors, 0%
VAT will apply to the supply of products or
services to the main industries for exporting
purposes and 10% VAT will be applied if the
products or services are supplied to the local
market.
• For contractors, 10% VAT will be applied to any
shortfall in the quantity/quality of the finished
products (as per the sale agreement) supplied
by the contractors if the contractors receive the
production inputs from the main industries. In
this event, the main industries are also liable
for the customs duties and taxes applied on the
imported production inputs.
• To be entitled to the above incentives, the
supporting industries and contractors are
required to meet certain requirements (e.g.
obtain approval from the MEF and submit the
sales contracts to the General Department of
Taxation) as outlined in the new Prakas.
VAT on import and supply of certain
agricultural products
The MEF has issued Prakas No. 312 MEF.Prk
dated 19 March 2014, which replaces Prakas No.
303 MEF.Prk dated 23 May 2001. The new Prakas
stipulates that VAT on the import and supply of
certain agricultural products shall be borne by the
government. Such products include all types of
fertilisers, plant seeds, animal medicines, animal
foods, animal species, and agricultural machinery
and tools.
VAT on contractors supplying rice for
export
The MEF has issued Prakas No. 313 MEF.
Prk dated 19 March 2014 which grants VAT
incentives to contractors who supply milled rice
and supporting services to the rice exporters for
exporting purposes.
Input VAT
• VAT on the import of production inputs and
equipment imported to produce milled rice for
export is borne by the government. However,
local purchases of production inputs, except for
paddy rice, are subject to 10% VAT.
China
Output VAT
• The direct supply of milled rice or milled
rice production services to the rice exporters
for exporting purposes is subject to 0% VAT.
However, 10% VAT will be applied to such
supplies for the local market.
• If contractors import production materials
for production of milled rice but do not
supply such milled rice to the exporters
based on the quantity and production
standard, the contractors will need to pay
10% VAT on the shortfall. The contractors
will also need to pay customs duty and other
taxes on the production materials.
• To be entitled to the above incentives,
entities in supporting industries and
contractors are required to fulfil certain
requirements (e.g. to obtain approval from
the MEF and to submit the sale contracts
to the General Department of Taxation) as
outlined in the new Prakas.
For more information, please contact:
Heng Thy
[email protected]
Tel: +855 23 218 086
Telecommunications sector joins B2V
pilot program
With effect from 1 June 2014, the
telecommunications sector comes under the
B2V Pilot Program. Units and individuals
supplying telecommunications services within
China become VAT payers and are required to
comply with the Caishui Circular [2014] No.
106 for the payment of VAT. They no longer
pay Business Tax.
Caishui Circular [2014] No. 43 defines
two categories of services. Basic
telecommunications services are subject
to VAT at 11% and value-added services
at 6%. However, units and individuals
providing telecommunication services to
units outside of China are exempt from
VAT. Telecommunications services that are
redeemed using reward points are not subject
to VAT.
Taxpayers are required to separately account
for the VAT on goods such as user cards and
set-top boxes as well as telecommunications
services that are bundled free of charge
together with the telecommunications services
they provide. As a transitional measure, units
that transmit digital data and information and
provide voice telephony via satellite and who
are General VAT Payers may elect to account
for VAT using the Simplified Method, prior to
31 December 2015.
Simplified VAT Levy Rate Structure
The Ministry of Finance and the State
Administration of Taxation have jointly issued
the Caishui Circular [2014] 57 (“Circular 57”)
on “Tax Policy Regarding the Simplification and
Combination of the VAT Levy Rates”. The Circular
takes effect on 1 July 2014.
In addition to the current VAT Rate structure,
China has a system of VAT Levy Rates of 3%,
4% and 6% that generally applies under certain
circumstances involving the use of the Simplified
Method. The system is further complicated by
the availability of concessionary Levy Rates
at half of the applicable Levy Rate in certain
situations. With effect from 1 July 2014, China
will standardise the VAT Levy Rate to 3%. Among
other beneficiaries, VAT General Payers who
produce and supply tap water and cement for
commercial use and elect to use the Simplified
Method will use the 3% VAT Levy Rate instead of
the current 6% VAT Levy Rate.
For more information, please contact:
Alan Wu
[email protected]
+86 10 6533 2889
India
Notifications/Circulars for VAT
Karnataka
Delhi
• The electronic filing of sales/stock transfer and
purchase/receipt listing in various annexure(s)
have been made mandatory for dealers having
a total turnover of INR 5 Mn or more during
the FY 2013-14 or in any subsequent year,
along with periodical returns for the tax period
starting May 2014.
• With effect from 26 March 2014, the facility
of affixing a digital signature on returns and
other documents filed electronically was
introduced.
46th amendment to the Constitution of India,
“Test of dominant nature”/ “Test of degree of
intention” was not applicable in the case of
composite contracts involving supply of goods
and provision of labour or services, which fell
within the ambit of clause 29A(b) of Article
366 of the Constitution.
• The electronic filing of sales and purchase
listing in annexure(s) J1 and J2 has been
made mandatory along with filing of
periodical returns for the tax period starting
April 2014.
• With effect from 23 May 2014, the rate of VAT
on cell phones having retail price in excess of
INR 10,000 has been increased from 5.25% to
8.40%. Tamil Nadu
VAT Case Laws
• The Delhi High Court, in Anchor Electricals (P)
Ltd v Commissioner of Sales Tax (2014-VIL81-Del), held that while classifying a product
under the relevant entry description of any
schedule, reference to HSN or central excise
tariff should be made only when the relevant
entry description referred to the HSN based
classification. In other cases, the classification
had to be done on the basis of the common
parlance test.
• With effect from 1 April 2014, the time limit
for filing monthly returns has been extended
from the 12th day of the subsequent month
to the 20th day of the subsequent month for
dealers having taxable turnover of INR 2000
Mn or more for the preceding year.
• The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court
in Kone Elevators India Pvt Ltd v State of
Tamilnadu (Writ Petition No 232 of 2005)
held that the transaction of manufacture,
supply and installation of lifts was a works
contract and not a contract for the sale of lifts.
The Supreme Court (“SC”) has reversed the
principles laid down by a three member bench
of the SC in the case of Kone Elevator India
Pvt Ltd (2005-3-SCC 389). The SC reiterated
the position of the law that pursuant to the
• The Bombay High Court in Additional
Commissioner of Sales Tax v Kirloskar
Copeland Ltd (2014-VIL-120-Bom) held that a
contract for exchange of defective compressor
with a repaired compressor was a cross transfer
of property between defective compressor and
repaired compressor and not a contract for
sale of repaired compressor. In this case, the
customer was required to pay repair charges
wherein the customer has two options: a) wait
for 60 days and get the defective compressor
Maharashtra
• With effect from 1 April 2014, the electronic
payment of tax has been made mandatory
for dealers having taxable turnover of more
than INR 20 Mn for the preceding year.
Haryana
duly repaired; or b) take a repaired compressor
of the same capacity, model and size. The
Court has held that the repair charges paid
by the customer for accepting the repaired
compressor of the same capacity could not be
treated as the price for the sale of the repaired
compressor as there was no consensual
agreement for the sale of the repaired
compressor.
• The Orissa High Court, in State Bank of India v
State of Odisha (2014-VIL-117-Ori), held that
the “bank” was a dealer liable to pay VAT on
the sale of goods in an auction conducted by it
to recover loan dues.
• The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd v State of Himachal
Pradesh (2014-VIL-93-HP) held that no sales
tax could be levied on supply of SIM cards to
subscribers as the SIM cards had no intrinsic
value and it was supplied to the customer for
providing telephone services. The Court has
relied on the Supreme Court decision in the
matter of Idea Mobile Communication Limited
(2011-VIL-17-SC-ST).
Service Tax Case Laws
• A two-member bench of the Bombay High
Court, in Indian Hotels and Restaurant
Association and ors v UoI and ors (2014-TIOL-
498-HC-MUM-ST) upheld the constitutional
validity of the levy of service tax on the supply
of food and beverages by hotels, restaurants,
etc. The Bombay High Court ruling was
contrary to the decision of the Kerala High
Court in Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts
Association v UoI (2013-TIOL-533-HC-KeralaST).
of goods, recommending manufacturing
process and vendors, reporting the status of
manufacture, analyzing samples, inspecting
export consignments and issuing inspection
certificates were ‘business auxiliary services’
(BAS). These services, though provided in
India, were used by the foreign entity for its
business outside India. Hence the services
qualify as export of services.
• The Bombay High Court, in CST v SGS India
Pvt Ltd (2014-TIOL-580-HC-MUM-ST) held
that the technical testing and analysis services
rendered by an Indian service provider to
foreign importers, to certify the importworthiness of the goods to be exported by
Indian exporters, though provided in India,
were consumed outside India. Therefore, such
services qualify as export of services.
• In Religare Securities Ltd v CST and CST v
Religare Securities Ltd (2014- TIOL-539CESTAT-DEL), the Delhi Tribunal held that the
‘delayed payment charges’ collected by service
providers from clients who failed to make
payment within the agreed time period, were
penal in nature and could not be held liable to
service tax.
• The Gujarat High Court, in CST v Zydus
Technologies Ltd (2014-TIOL-613-HC-AHMST) held that the input services used before
the commencement of manufacturing or, as in
the instant case, before the grant of approval
to commence ‘authorised operations’ by the
SEZ unit, was eligible for CENVAT credit. A
refund of the same could be claimed subject to
conditions.
• In JP Transformers v CCEST (2014-TIOL-664CESTAT-DEL), the Delhi Tribunal held that
in a repair and maintenance contract where
the value of goods/material and the value of
labour/services had been separately disclosed
and the applicable excise duty/VAT charged
on the value of goods, service tax would be
payable only on the value of labour/service
charges.
• In Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt Ltd
v CST (2014-TIOL-465- CESTAT-DEL), the
Delhi Tribunal held that services rendered to
a foreign entity relating to the procurement
• In PSL Ltd v CCE (2014-TIOL-675-CESTATAHM), the Ahmedabad Tribunal held that
where, on the basis of an audit objection, tax
was paid under reverse charge on foreign
agency commission charges, which was later
found to be not payable, refund of the same
could be claimed subject to unjust enrichment
test.
• In Khem Sales Agencies v CCE (2014-TIOL708-CESTAT-DEL), the Delhi Tribunal held
that in a works contract where the value
of taxable services had been separately
mentioned in the agreement as well as on the
invoices, the same could not be treated as an
indivisible works contract. Accordingly, service
tax would be payable only on the value of the
contract which pertained to taxable services.
• In Gujarat Nippon Enterprise Pvt Ltd v CST
(2014-TIOL-784-CESTAT-MUM), the Mumbai
Tribunal held that where advance money
was returned on cancellation of the service
agreement, the amount of service tax paid at
the time of receipt of advance money could
be claimed as refund as the tax was paid
inadvertently.
• The Delhi Tribunal, in Agarwal Motors v CCE
(2014-TIOL-827-CESTAT-DEL) held that where
commission received had been reversed for
non-provision or non-completion of services,
service tax paid by the commission agent at
the time of receipt of commission could be
reversed/adjusted against future liability.
• In B4U Television Network (I) P Ltd v CST
(2014-TIOL-884-CESTAT-MUM), the Mumbai
Tribunal held that excess service tax paid
during the period 2001 to 2002 could be selfadjusted against service tax liability for the
period October 2002 to March 2003 under rule
6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, and that there
was no need to file a refund claim instead.
• In Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt Ltd
v CCECST (2014-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-BANG),
the Bangalore Tribunal held that for the
purpose of calculation of limitation period
for filing refund claim towards the export of
services, the relevant date was the date of
receipt of payment for services exported, not
the date when the services were provided.
For more information, please contact:
Vivek Mishra
[email protected]
+91 124 330 6518
Anita Rastogi
[email protected]
+91 124 330 6531
New Zealand
Hire firm security bonds
The Inland Revenue has recently published
their current view on the GST treatment of
security bonds paid to hire firms. The central
example discussed by Inland Revenue is the
payment of a bond by a customer to a hire (or
leasing) firm.
For GST to apply to a transaction, a registered
person must make a supply for consideration in
the course of or furtherance of a taxable activity.
The Commissioner’s view is that the initial
payment of a bond is not for any supply, and
thus is not subject to GST. The initial payment of
a bond arises in the context of a supply of hired
goods, but the payment is not for that supply.
For more information, please contact:
Eugen Trombitas
[email protected]
+64 9 355 8686
The conclusion is that no GST applies to the
bond. The draft item helpfully discusses a
number of other scenarios/payments (or uses
of the bond) and whether GST applies. This
development is useful because it draws out
a distinction between fees that are subject to
GST and those that are not and affirms that not
all business receipts are subject to GST.
The same rules apply if all or part of a bond
is sacrificed as compensation to the hirer for
damage to, or loss of, the goods or for breaching
a condition of hire. The forfeited bond is not
consideration for a supply; instead it is a payment
for damages. The Commissioner’s view is
that GST will not apply where the payment is
compensation for damages.
Ian Rowe
[email protected]
The Commissioner’s previous view was that
GST was payable in respect of bonds paid
as security on hire goods if the bond was
sacrificed as a result of a contingency such as
non-compliance with the bond conditions. The
amount of the bond appropriated was seen as
consideration for a taxable supply and subject
to GST.
However, GST is payable when all or part of the
bond is forfeited as payment of an extra hire
charge, such as a late return fee. If the hire firm
and the customer agree that all or a portion of the
bond will be used to purchase the hired goods,
then GST will apply to that sale in the ordinary
way.
When a customer hires goods, they are often
required to pay a bond as a form of collateral in
the event that the hire goods are damaged, not
returned, or the customer breaches a term of
the hire agreement.
We expect that business-to-business transactions
will be GST neutral, but it would still be
beneficial to check the GST treatment adopted.
For business-to-customer transactions (where
customers are not GST-registered), there may
be an opportunity to improve your margin by
checking the GST treatment.
Gary O’Neill
[email protected]
+64 9 355 8432
Philippines
Application for Value-Added Tax (VAT)
Refund/Credit under Section 112 of the
Tax Code
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”)
has issued a Revenue Memorandum Circular
(“RMC”) No. 54-2014 dated 11 June 2014 to
summarize the rules on filing and processing
of applications for VAT refund/tax credit based
on cases decided by the Supreme Court. The
salient points of the RMC are as follows:
1. Prescriptive period within which
administrative claim for refund or tax
credit of input tax should be made
Tax refunds relating to zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated sales must be filed
within 2 years after the close of the
taxable quarter when sales were made in
accordance with Sec. 112 (A) of the Tax
Code. The CIR shall have 120 days from
date of submission of complete documents
to decide whether or not to grant the claim
for refund or issue a Tax Credit Certificate
(TCC) for creditable input taxes. If no action
is made by the CIR within the 120-day
period, such “inaction shall be deemed a
denial” of the application for tax refund or
TCC.
2. Filing and Processing of Administrative
Claims
Applications for VAT refund/TCC must
be accompanied by complete supporting
documents as enumerated under the
“Checklist of Mandatory Requirements for
Claims for VAT Credit/Refund”. The taxpayer
shall attach a statement under oath attesting
to the completeness of submitted documents.
In case of juridical (corporate) applicants,
that statement should be accompanied by
a sworn certification signifying that the
signing officer (i.e. at the very least, the Chief
Financial Officer) is authorised by the Board of
Directors. The checklist and sworn certification
(Annexes “A” and “B” of the RMC) can be
downloaded from http://www.bir.gov.ph/.
Upon submission of the administrative claim
and its supporting documents, the same shall
be processed and no other documents shall be
accepted/requested from the taxpayer.
3. Mandatory 120+30 Day Period
In case of full or partial denial of the claim for
tax refund or TCC, or the failure on the part
of the CIR to act on the application within the
period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected
may file an appeal in one of two ways: (1)
file the judicial claim within 30 days after the
Commissioner denies the claim within the 120day period, or (2) file the judicial claim within
30 days from the expiration of the 120-day
period if the Commissioner does not act within
such period.
4. Exception to the Mandatory and
Jurisdictional Nature of the 120+30 day
Period
As an exception to the 120+30 day period, it
was emphasised that from the time of issuance
of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on December 10,
2003 up to its reversal by the Supreme Court in
the Aichi case on 6 October 2010 (or a period
of almost 7 years), taxpayers/claimant need
not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period
before it could seek judicial relief with the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). This exception,
however, is limited to cases of premature filing
(filing of judicial claim prior to the lapse of the
120-day period) and does not extend to late
filing of a judicial claim.
Singapore
5. Pending Administrative Claim
The CIR shall lose jurisdiction over an
administrative claim once the taxpayer has
filed a “petition for review” with the CTA.
Failure to file the judicial claim with the CTA
within 30 days from expiration of the 120day period shall render the Commissioner’s
decision or inaction which is “deemed a
denial”, final and unappealable. This rule will
apply to all pending administrative claim for
refund/tax credit. The Circular shall take effect
immediately.
For more information, please contact:
Malou P. Lim, Partner
[email protected]
+63 2 459 2016
E-tax guide on the attribution of input
tax
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
(“IRAS”) has issued a guide to explain how
a partially exempt business is to attribute
its input tax and when input tax may be
considered to be “directly attributable” to a
supply. In summary,
• The IRAS has indicated that it would treat
the the input tax incurred on a purchase
of a good or service to be “directly
attributable” to a supply if
– the purchase forms a cost component of
a supply; or
– the purchase is being used as an input or
will be used to make the supply.
• Input tax incurred on the purchase of a
good or service is directly attributable
to a taxable supply only if there is no
intervening exempt supply.
For more information, please contact:
Koh Soo How
[email protected]
+65 6236 3600
Weijie Lin
[email protected]
+65 6236 7481
Vietnam
New decree and circular on invoicing
The Government has recently issued Decree
04/2014/ND-CP partly amending Decree
51/2010/ND-CP on invoicing. Decree 04
took effect from 1 March 2014. Following the
Decree, the Ministry of Finance has issued
Circular 39/2014 on invoicing regulations
providing guidance on the implementation of
Decree 51/2010/ ND-CP and Decree 04/2014/
ND-CP. Circular 39 replacing Circular 64/2013
became effective on 1 June 2014.
The notable changes include:
• Export invoices are abolished. Instead, VAT
invoices are used for the export of goods or
the provision of services to foreign countries
or non-tariff areas. For Export Processing
Enterprises, sales invoices are used for both
domestic and export sales.
• Individuals and households who are
required to issue invoices must purchase
pre-printed invoices from the tax
authorities.
• Subject to various other conditions,
companies are permitted to use self-printed
invoices if (i) their charter capital is at least
VND 15 billion (USD 715k) or (ii) their
charter capital is below VND 15 billion but
their total historical cost of fixed asset is at
least VND 1 billion (USD 48k).
• Use of self-printed/pre-printed invoices now
requires approval from the tax authorities
(previously only a notification was required).
• The name and tax code of the self-printedinvoice software provider is no longer required
to be disclosed on the self-printed invoice.
• The following enterprises are now required to
purchase invoices from the tax authorities:
– Enterprises declaring VAT on a deemed
basis (i.e. not the conventional credit
system);
– “High tax risk” enterprises;
– Enterprises using self-printed invoices/preprinted invoices which have been penalised
for tax evasion.
• “High tax risk” enterprises include inter alia
enterprises which its owners’ equity is less
than VND 15 billion and submit their tax
declarations more than 90 days after the
deadline, or enterprises with more than 50% of
their revenue coming from companies owned
by family members.
• Companies considered as “high tax risk” are
required to use software downloaded from
the website of the General Department of
Taxation to print self-printed invoices if they
do not want to purchase invoices from the tax
authorities.
• The requirement to cross the blank section of
the VAT invoice is not applied for self-printed
invoices/pre-printed invoices printed by
computer.
For more information, please contact:
Richard J Irwin
(84) (8) 3 823 0796
[email protected]
Contacts
Australia
Peter Konidaris, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +61 3 8603 1168
Japan
Masanori Kato, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +81 3 5251 2536
Philippines
Malou P. Lim, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +63 2 459 2016
Vietnam
Richard J. Irwin, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +84 8 3823 0796
Cambodia
Heng Thy, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +855 23 218 086
Kotaku Kimu, Director
[email protected]
Tel: +81 3 5251 2713
Singapore
Koh Soo How, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +65 6236 3600
David Fitzgerald, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +84 8 3824 0116
China
Alan Wu, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +86 10 6533 2889
India
Vivek Mishra, Executive Director
[email protected]
Tel: +91 124 330 6518
Anita Rastogi, Associate Director
[email protected]
Tel: +91 124 330 6531
Laos
Thavorn Rujivanarom, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +662 344 1444
Malaysia
Wan Heng Choon,
Senior Executive Director
[email protected]
Tel: +60 3 2173 1488
New Zealand
Eugen Trombitas, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +64 9 355 8686
Indonesia
Ali Widodo, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +62 21 52890623
Gary O’Neill, Director
[email protected]
Tel: +64 9 355 8432
Abdullah Azis, Associate Director
[email protected]
Tel: +62 21 5289 0601
Ian Rowe, Director
[email protected]
Tel: +64 4 462 7274
Weijie Lin, Manager
[email protected]
Tel: +65 6236 7481
South Korea
Dong-Keon (D.K.) Lee, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +82 2 709 0561
Sri Lanka
Hiranthi Ratnayake, Director
[email protected]
Tel: +94 11 4719838
Taiwan
Lily Hsu, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +886 2 2729 6666 Ext. 26207
Thailand
Somboon Weerawutiwong, Partner
[email protected]
Tel: +662 344 1000 Ext. 1247
For a comprehensive guide to global
VAT/GST information from over
70 countries worldwide, please
visit GlobalVATOnline at www.
globalvatonline.com. GlobalVATOnline
can keep you up to date on all VAT
issues and developments as they unfold.
Disclaimer. Clients receiving this Alert should take no action without first contacting their usual PwC Indirect Tax Advisor.
© 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. Not for further distribution without the permission of PwC. “PwC” refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL),
or, as the context requires, individual member firms of the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to
clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind them in any way. No member firm is responsible or liable
for the acts or omissions of any other member firm nor can it control the exercise of another member firm’s professional judgment or bind another member firm or PwCIL in any way.