2019 Securitisation volumes in India reach record high- Up, Up & Above!

By Falak Dutta, (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Yet another year went by and Indian securitization market certainly had a year to rejoice. Starting from the volume of transactions to innovative structures, the market has everything to boast about. Before we discuss each of these at length, let us take stock of the highlights first: Read more

Securitisation laws prevailing in various countries are listed below :

  • Singapore:
  1. Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Guidelines on Securitisation (The guidelines were finalized in 2000)
  2. Amendment in 2018
    http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/MAS/Regulations%20and%20Financial%20Stability/Regulations%20Guidance%20and%20Licensing/Finance%20Companies/Notices/MAS%20Notice%20832%20%20Amendment%20%202018.pdf
  3. Amendment in 2007
    http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/MAS/Regulations%20and%20Financial%20Stability/Regulations%20Guidance%20and%20Licensing/Commercial%20Banks/Regulations%20Guidance%20and%20Licensing/Notices/MAS%20Notice%20628%20(2007).pdf
  4. News on Securitisation
    http://vinodkothari.com/2013/11/sing/
  5. Rules on Securitisation
    http://vinodkothari.com/seclawsg/
  • USA:
  1. 15 U.S. Code § 78o–11. Credit risk retention:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78o-11
  2. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [Public Law 111–203] [As Amended Through P.L. 115–174, Enacted May 24, 2018]
    https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Dodd-Frank%20Wall%20Street%20Reform%20and%20Consumer%20Protection%20Act.pdf
  3. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/secusa/
  4. Laws on Securitisation
    http://vinodkothari.com/seclawus/
  • Australia:
  1. Australian Prudential Standard (APS) 120 made under section 11AF of the Banking Act 1959 (the Banking Act) By Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
    https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/aps_120_securitisation.pdf
  2. Covered Bonds issued under Part II, Division 3A of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth)
    https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00067
  3. Laws on Securitisation
    http://vinodkothari.com/seclawaustral/
  4. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/austral/
  • Indonesia:
  1. Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 7/4/PBI/2005 Prudential Principles in Asset Securitisation for Commercial Banks
    https://www.bi.go.id/en/peraturan/perbankan/Pages/bir%207405.aspx
  2. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/secindon/
  • Hong Kong: 
  1. There is no specific legislative regime for securitisation. Securitisation is subject to various Hong Kong laws, depending on the transaction structure, transaction parties, underlying assets, and the nature of the offering of the securities
  2. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/sechong/
  • Canada:
  1. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Government of Canada
    http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/fi-if/rg-ro/gdn-ort/gl-ld/Pages/CAR18_chpt7.aspx
  2. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/seccanad/
  • European Union:(UK, Germany, France,Italy, Sweden, Poland, Spain, Greece, Finland, Malta)
  1. Regulation(EU) 2017/2402 (the Securitisation Regulation) as on December 12,2017
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R2402
  2. Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 30, 2015
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52015PC0472
  3. Securitisation Market:
    http://vinodkothari.com/europe/

 

  • Italy:
  1. Law 130 of 30 April 1999, Italian securitisation law
    https://www.housing-finance-network.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hfn/Country_Law/Law-Italy/2006-00281.pdf
  2. Securitistion Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/secitaly/
  • Greece:
  1. GREEK LAW 3156/2003
    http://www.greeklawdigest.gr/topics/finance-investment/item/317-securitization-law-bonds-l-3156-2003
  • France:
  1. Order No. 2017-1432 of October 4, 2017 , Modernizing the Legal Framework for Asset Management and Debt Financing (Initial Version)
    https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000035720833&categorieLien=id
    Version in force on 26/03/2019
    https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000035720833&dateTexte=20190326
  2. Securitisation Market:
    http://vinodkothari.com/france/
  • Japan: Securitisation in Japan is governed by laws and regulations applicable to specific types of transactions such as the Civil Code (Law No. 89, 1896), the Trust Act (Law No. 108, 2006) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law (Law No. 25, 1948) (FIEL).
  1. https://www.fsa.go.jp/common/law/fie01.pdf
  2. http://jafbase.fr/docAsie/Japon/CodCiv.pdf
  3. http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_download/?ff=09&id=1946
  4. Laws on Securitisation
    http://vinodkothari.com/seclawjapan/
  5. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/japan/
  • China:
  1. Administrative Rules for Pilot Securitization of Credit Assets(the Administrative Rules) on April 2005
    http://www.cbrc.gov.cn/EngdocView.do?docID=1720
  2. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/secchina-2/
  • Ireland:
  1. European Union (General Framework For Securitisation And Specific Framework For Simple, Transparent And Standardised Securitisation) Regulations 2018 (Central Bank of Ireland)
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/si/656/made/en/pdf
  • South Africa:
  1. In South Africa, securitisations are regulated according to the securitisation regulations issued under the Banks Act 94 of 1990 (the Banks Act)
    https://www.resbank.co.za/Lists/News%20and%20Publications/Attachments/2591/Banks+Amendment+Act+2007%5B1%5D.pdf
  1. Government Gazette 30628 of 1 January 2008 (Securitisation Regulations)
    https://www.resbank.co.za/Lists/News%20and%20Publications/Attachments/2734/30628%20sec%20schemes%202008.pdf
  2. Laws on Securitisation
    http://vinodkothari.com/seclawsa/
  3. Securitisation Market
    http://vinodkothari.com/secafric/
  • Morocco:
  1. Law No. 33-06 on Securitization
  2. Draft amendment of Law on Securitization
    http://www.sgg.gov.ma/portals/0/AvantProjet/8/Projet_loi_Amendement-titrisation_Ang.pdf

RBI removes cap on investments in corporate bonds by FPIs

By Abhirup Ghosh (abhirup@vinodkothari.com), (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in its Sixth Bi-monthly Monetary Policy Statement for 2018-19 dated February 07, 2019[1] had declared that for the purpose of widening the spectrum of investors in the Indian corporate bond market, it will remove the cap on investment to be made by FPIs on corporate bonds. In furtherance to the declaration, the RBI on 15th February, 2019[2] issued a notification giving effect to the proposal.

Before we understand what the impact of the notification will be, let us recapitulate what the restrictions were. Read more

Accounting for Direct Assignment under Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS)

By Team IFRS & Valuation Services (ifrs@vinodkothari.com) (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

Direct assignment (DA) is a very popular way of achieving liquidity needs of an entity. With the motives of achieving off- balance sheet treatment accompanied by low cost of raising funds, financial sector entities enter into securitisation and direct assignment transactions involving sale of their loan portfolios. DA in the context of Indian securitisation practices involves sale of loan portfolios without the involvement of a special purpose vehicle, unlike securitisation, where setting up of an SPV is an imperative.

The term DA is unique to India, that is, only in Indian context we use the term DA for assignment of loan or lease portfolios to another entity like bank. Whereas, on a global level, a similar arrangements are known by various other names like loan sale, whole-loan sales or loan portfolio sale.

In India, the regulatory framework governing Das and securitisation transactions are laid down by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The guidelines for governing securitisation structures, often referred to as pass-through certificates route (PTCs) were issued for the first time in 2006, where the focus of the Guidelines was restricted to securitisation transactions only and direct assignments were nowhere in the picture. The RBI Guidelines were revised in 2012 to include provisions relating to direct assignment transactions.

Read more

RBI temporarily relaxes the Guidelines on Securitisation for NBFCs

By Financial Services Division, finserv@vinodkothari.com

 

In the wake of the recent hues and cries of the entire country in anticipation of a liquidity crisis in the NBFC sector, the Reserve Bank of India, on 29th November, 2018, issued a notification[1] to modify the Securitisation Guidelines.The amendment aims to relax the minimum holding period requirements of the guidelines, subject to conditions, temporarily. Therefore, the changes vide this notification come with an expiry date. The key takeaways of the notification have been discussed below:

a. Relaxation in the MHP requirements: As per the notification, NBFCs will now be allowed to securitise/ assign loans originated by them, with original maturity of more than 5 years, after showing record of recovery of repayments of six monthly instalments or two quarterly instalments (as applicable). Currently, for loans with original maturity more than 5 years, the MHP requirements are repayment of at least twelve monthly instalments or four quarterly instalments (as applicable).

b. Change in MRR requirements for the loans securitised under this notification: The benefit mentioned above will be available only if the NBFC retains at least 20% of the assets securitised/ assigned. Currently, the MRR requirements ranges between 5%-10% depending on the tenure of the loans.

c. Timeline for availing this benefit: As already stated above, this is a temporary measure adopted by the RBI to ease out the tension relating to liquidity issues of the NBFCs; therefore, this comes with an expiry date, which in the present case is six months from the date of issuance of the notification. Therefore, this benefit will be available for only those loans which are securitised/ assigned during a period of six months from the date of issuance of this notification.

The requirements under the guidelines remains intact.

To summarise, the MHP requirements and the MRR requirements on securitisation/ assignment of loans looks as such –

Loans assigned between 29th November, 2018 – 28th May, 2019 Loans assigned after 29th May, 2019
MHP requirements for loans with original maturity less than 5 years Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months

 

Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months

Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months

 

Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months

MHP requirements for loans with original maturity less than 5 years If revised MRR requirements fulfilled – 6 months

 

If revised MRR requirements not fulfilled – 12 months

Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months

 

Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months

MRR requirements for loans with original maturity of less than 5 years Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%

 

Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10%

Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%

 

Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10%

MRR requirements for loans with original maturity of more than 5 years If benefit of MHP requirements availed – 20%

 

If benefit of MHP requirements not availed – 10%

Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%

 

Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10%

 

Vinod Kothari comments: 

  •  Loans with original maturity of more than 5 years are essentially home loans and LAP loans. Home loans are housed mostly with HFCs. These guidelines ought to have come from NHB rather than RBI, but given the tradition that RBI guidelines are followed in case of HFCs as well, this “relaxation” will be more applicable to HFCs rather than NBFCs.
  • In case of LAP loans, given the current credit scenario prevailing in the country, taking exposure on LAP loans itself is subject to question. Issue is – will the relaxation prompt NBFCs to write LAP loans, or will it simply allow them to package and sell existing pools of lap loans sitting on their books waiting for the MHP of 12 months to get over? It is more likely to be latter than the former.
  • However, the so-called relaxation comes with a give-and-take – the MRR is 20%. The NBFC has, therefore, 2 options – wait for 12 months to be over and just do a transaction with 10% MRR, or avail the so-called relaxation and put in on-balance funding of 20%. Therefore, it is only for those who are desperate for refinancing that the so-called relaxation will seem appealing.
  • Our interaction with leading NBFCs reveals that there are immediate liquidity concerns . Banks are not willing to take on-balance sheet exposure on NBFCs; rather they are willing to take exposure on pools. Therefore, for more than 6 months and less than 12 months seasoned LAP pools, this might provide a temporary packaging opportunity.
  • This is indeed the best time to think of covered bonds. The proposition has been lying unresolved for last few years. If banks are willing to take exposure on pools, why not dual recourse by way of covered bonds? That indeed provides ideal solution, with ring fenced pools providing double layers of protection.

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11422&Mode=0

For more articles on Securitisation and Covered Bonds, refer our page here.

Also refer our article: The name is Bond. Covered Bonds.

 

Investment by FPIs in securitised debt instruments

By Anita Baid,(anita@vinodkothari.com)(finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Investments by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) in unlisted debentures and securitised debt instruments (SDIs) issued by Indian companies was allowed pursuant to SEBI notification dated 27th February, 2017[1]. Earlier in November, 2016, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had also permitted investment by FPIs in unlisted non-convertible debentures and securitised debt instruments issued by Indian companies[2]. The said amendments by the securities market regulator and financial services regulator were the final push which was needed to encourage more FPI investments in India.

Previously, FPIs could invest only in debt securities of companies engaged in infrastructure sector. This was a clear indication that the government aimed to develop the infrastructure sector in India. But eventually, it seemed that the government did not want to restrict this to infrastructure only and wanted to reap all the benefits for developing a dynamic and facilitating bond market in the country.

Economic development and smooth flow of funds into the economy are the twin sides of the same coin and the government of India has very well taken this into account while amending the FPI regulation. Allowing FPI investments in unlisted debt instruments of Indian companies, was a step by the government to relax the burden which the companies had to bear, while raising funds in form of equity. The regulation  in turn blocked the companies from taping into fresh funds and listing of debt instruments, which called for additional burden of complying with a host of other regulations.

Read more

GST on assignment of receivables: Wrong path to the right destination

Team Vinod Kothari Consultants P. Ltd

 

There has been a lot of uncertainty on the issue of exigibility of direct assignments and securitisation transactions to goods and services tax (GST). While on one hand, there have been opinions that assignments of secured debts may be taxable being covered by the circuitous definition of “actionable claims”, there are other views holding such assignments of debts (secured or unsecured) to be non-taxable since an obligation to pay money is nothing but money, and hence, not  “goods” under the GST law[1]. The uncertainty was costing the market heavily[2].

In order to put diverging views to rest, the GST Council came out with a set of Frequently Asked Questions on Financial Services Sector[3], trying to clarify the position of some arguable issues pertaining to transactions undertaken in the financial sector. These FAQs include three separate (and interestingly, mutually unclear) questions on – (a) assignment or sale of secured or secured debts [Q.40], (b) whether assignment of secured debts constitutes a transaction in money [Q.41], and (c) securitisation transactions undertaken by banks [Q.65].

The end-result arising out of these questions is that there will be no GST on securitisation transactions. However, the GST Council has relied on some very intriguing arguments to come to this conclusion – seemingly lost between the meaning of “derivatives”, “securities”, and “actionable claims”. If one does not care about why we reached here, the conclusion is most welcome. However, the FAQs also reflect the serious lack of understanding of financial instruments with the Council, which may potentially create issues in the long run.

In this note[4] we intend to discuss the outcome of the FAQs, but before that let us first understand what the situation of the issue was before this clarification.

Situation before the clarification

  1. GST is chargeable on supply of goods or services or both. Goods have been defined in section 2(52) of the CGST Act in the following manner:

“(52) “goods” means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply;”

Services have been defined in section 2(102) of the CGST Act oin in the following manner:

““services” means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged;”

Money, is therefore, excludible from the scope of “goods” as well as “services”.

Section 7 details the scope of the expression “supply”. According to the section, “supply” includes “all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.” However, activities as specified in Schedule III of the said Act shall not be considered as “supply”.

It may be noted here that “Actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling” are enlisted in entry 6 of Schedule III of the said Act; therefore are not exigible to GST.

  1. There is no doubt that a “receivable” is a movable property. “Receivable” denotes something which one is entitled to receive. Receivable is therefore, a mirror image for “debt”. If a sum of money is receivable for A, the same sum of money must be a debt for B. A debt is an obligation to pay, a receivable is the corresponding right to receive.

Coming to the definition of “money”, it has been defined under section 2(75) as follows –

““money” means the Indian legal tender or any foreign currency, cheque, promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit, draft, pay order, traveller cheque, money order, postal or electronic remittance or any other instrument recognised by the Reserve Bank of India when used as a consideration to settle an obligation or exchange with Indian legal tender of another denomination but shall not include any currency that is held for its numismatic value.”

The definition above enlists all such instruments which have a “value-in-exchange”, so as to represent money. A debt also represents a sum of money and the form in which it can be paid can be any of these forms as enlisted above.

So, in effect, a receivable is also a sum of “money”. As such, receivables shall not be considered as “goods” or “services” for the purpose of GST law.

  1. As mentioned earlier, “actionable claims” have been included in the definition of “goods” under the CGST Act, however, any transfer (i.e. supply) of actionable claim is explicitly excluded from being treated as a supply of either goods or services for the purpose of levy of GST.

Section 2(1) of the CGST Act defines “actionable claim” so as to assign it the same meaning as in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which in turn, defines “actionable claim” as –

“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;”

It may be noted that the inclusion of “actionable claim” is still subject to the exclusion of “money” from the definition of “goods”. The definition of actionable claim travels beyond “claim to a debt” and covers “claim to any beneficial interest in movable property”. Therefore, an actionable claim is definitely more than a “receivable”. Hence, if the actionable claim represents property that is money, it can be held that such form of the actionable claim shall be excluded from the ambit of “goods”.

There were views in the industry which, on the basis of the definition above, distinguish between — (a) a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, and a debt secured by hypothecation/pledge of movable property on one hand (which are excluded from the definition of actionable claim); and (b) an unsecured debt on the other hand. However, others opined that a debt, whether secured or unsecured, is after all a “debt”, i.e. a property in money; and thus can never be classified as “goods”. Therefore, the entire exercise of making a distinction between secured and unsecured debt may not be relevant at all.

In case it is argued that a receivable which is secured (i.e. a secured debt) shall come within the definition of “goods”, it must be noted that a security granted against a debt is merely a back-up, a collateral against default in repayment of debt.

  1. In one of the background materials on GST published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India[5], it has been emphasised that a transaction where a person merely slips into the shoes of another person, the same cannot be termed as supply. As such, unrestricted expansion of the expression “supply” should not be encouraged:

“. . . supply is not a boundless word of uncertain meaning. The inclusive part of the opening words in this clause may be understood to include everything that supply is generally understood to be PLUS the ones that are enlisted. It must be admitted that the general understanding of the world supply is but an amalgam of these 8 forms of supply. Any attempt at expanding this list of 8 forms of supply must be attempted with great caution. Attempting to find other forms of supply has not yielded results however, transactions that do not want to supply have been discovered. Transactions of assignment where one person steps into the shoes of another appears to slip away from the scope of supply as well as transactions where goods are destroyed without a transfer of any kind taking place.”

Also, as already stated, where the object is neither goods nor services, there is no question of being a supply thereof.

  1. Therefore, there was one school of thought which treated as assignment of secured receivables as a supply under the GST regime and another school of thought promoted a view which was contrary to the other one. To clarify the position, representations were made by some of the leading bankers and the Indian Securitisation Foundation.

Situation after the clarification

  1. The GST Council has discussed the issue of assignment and securitisation of receivables through different question, extracts have been reproduced below:

 

  1. Whether assignment or sale of secured or unsecured debts is liable to GST?

Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 defines ‘goods’ to mean every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim. Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 lists activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services and actionable claims other than lottery, betting and gambling are included in the said Schedule. Thus, only actionable claims in respect of lottery, betting and gambling would be taxable under GST. Further, where sale, transfer or assignment of debts falls within the purview of actionable claims, the same would not be subject to GST.

Further, any charges collected in the course of transfer or assignment of a debt would be chargeable to GST, being in the nature of consideration for supply of services.

  1. Would sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of a secured debt constitute a transaction in money?

Sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of a secured debt does not constitute a transaction in money; it is in the nature of a derivative and hence a security.

  1. What is the leviability of GST on securitization transactions undertaken by banks?

Securitized assets are in the nature of securities and hence not liable to GST. However, if some service charges or service fees or documentation fees or broking charges or such like fees or charges are charged, the same would be a consideration for provision of services related to securitization and chargeable to GST.

 

  1. The fallacy starts with two sequential and separate questions: one dealing with securitisation and the other on assignment transactions. There was absolutely no need for incorporating separate questions for the two, since all securitisation transactions involve an assignment of debt.

 

  1. Next, the department in Question 40 has clarified that the assignment of actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling forms a part of the list of exclusion under Schedule III of the CGST Act, therefore, are not subject to GST. This was apparent from the reading of law, therefore, there is nothing new in this.

 

However, the second part of the answer needs further discussion. The second part of the answer states that – any charges collected in the course of transfer or assignment of a debt would be chargeable to GST, being in the nature of consideration for supply of services.

There are multiple charges or fees associated in an assignment or securitisation transaction – such as  servicing fees or excess spread. While it is very clear that the GST will be chargeable on servicing fees charged by the servicer, there is still a confusion on whether GST will be charged on the excess spread or not. Typically, transactions are devised to give residuary sweep to the originator after servicing the PTCs. Therefore, there could be a challenge that sweep right is also a component of servicing fees or consideration for acting as a servicing agent. The meaning of consideration[6] under the CGST Act is consideration in any form and the nomenclature supports the intent of the transaction.

Since, the originator gets the excess spread, question may arise, if excess spread is in the nature of interest.  This indicates the need for proper structuring of transactions, to ensure that either the sweep right is structured as a security, or the same is structured as a right to interest. One commonly followed international structure is credit-enhancing IO strip. The IO strip has not been tried in Indian transactions, and recommendably this structure may alleviate concerns about GST being applied on the excess spread.

  1. Till now, whatever has been discussed was more or less settled before the clarification, question 41 settles the dispute on the contentious question of whether GST will be charged on assigned of secured debt. The answer to question 41 has compared sale, purchase, acquisition or assignment of secured debt with a derivative. The answer has rejected the view, held by the authors, that any right to a payment in money is money itself. The GST Council holds the view that the receivables are in the nature of derivatives, the transaction qualifies to be a security and therefore, exempt from the purview of supply of goods or supply of services.

While the intent of the GST Council is coming out very clear, but this view is lacking supporting logic. Neither the question discusses why assignments of secured receivables are not transactions in money, nor does it state why it is being treated as derivative.

Our humble submission in this regard is that assignment of secured receivables may not be treated as derivatives. The meaning of the term “derivatives” have been drawn from section 2(ac) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which includes the following –

(A) a security derived from a debt instrument, share, loan, whether secured or unsecured, risk instrument or contract for differences or any other form of security;

(B) a contract which derives its value from the prices, or index of prices, of underlying securities.

In the present case, assignment of receivables do not represent any security nor does it derive its value from anything else. The receivables themselves have an inherent value, which get assigned, the fact that it is backed a collateral security does not make any difference as the value of the receivables also factor the value of the underlying.

Even though the logic is not coming out clear, the intent of the Council is coming out clearly and the efforts made by the Council to clear out the ambiguities is really commendable.

 


[1] Refer: GST on Securitisation Transactions, by Nidhi Bothra, and Sikha Bansal, at  http://vinodkothari.com/blog/gst-on-securitisation-transactions-2/; pg. last visited on 06.06.2018

[2] At the recently concluded Seventh Securitisation Summit on 25th May, 2018, one leading originator confirmed that his company had kept transactions on hold in view of the GST uncertainty. It was widely believed that the dip in volumes in FY 2017-18 was primarily due to GST uncertainty.

[3] http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/gst/FAQs_on_Financial_Services_Sector.pdf

[4] Portions of this note have been adopted from the article – GST on Securitisation Transactions, by Nidhi Bothra and Sikha Bansal.

[5] http://idtc-icai.s3.amazonaws.com/download/pdf18/Volume-I(BGM-idtc).pdf; pg. last visited on 19.05.2018

[6] (31) “consideration” in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes––

(a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government;

(b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government:

Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply;