Free tool · Rule 33 CGST · Every condition cited
Pure-Agent Checker — which client pass-throughs stay out of GST?
You pay DTCP fees, sanction charges and consultants with the client's money. Handled right, those amounts stay out of GST and out of your 44ADA receipts. Handled wrong, they attract 18% GST and eat your presumptive ceiling. Ten questions decide it — Rule 33 is all-or-nothing.
Typical treatment: Usually CAN qualify — client is liable, fee is official, exact recovery. Any markup or bundled "approval charges" kills it.
Legality gate — is any part of this an unofficial payment / "speed money" to influence a public servant?
Is there an agreement appointing you as the client's pure agent for this category of payment? (Explanation (a) to Rule 33)
Did the client specifically authorise this payment BEFORE you made it? (Rule 33(i))
Was the CLIENT (not you) legally liable to the authority/vendor for this amount? (Rule 33(i), Expl. (a))
Did the client know which third party would supply / receive the payment? (Rule 33(i))
Is the recovery shown as a SEPARATE line on your invoice, apart from your fee? (Rule 33(ii))
Is the amount recovered EXACTLY what you paid — no markup, handling fee, or retained discount? (Explanation (d) to Rule 33)
Did you avoid holding title to the goods/services procured? (Explanation (b) to Rule 33)
Were they procured solely for the client — never used for your own work or deliverable? (Explanation (c) to Rule 33)
Is the third-party supply ADDITIONAL to your own service — not an input you used to deliver it? (Rule 33(iii))
Do you hold the official receipt / third-party invoice for the exact amount? (Rule 33 (evidence))
PURE AGENT OK — exclude ₹1,00,000 from value of supply
All Rule 33 conditions hold: no GST on this recovery, and it stays OUT of your s.44ADA gross receipts (protecting your ₹50L/₹75L headroom). Preserve the four proofs together: the pure-agent agreement, the pre-payment authorisation, the official receipt/third-party invoice, and your invoice showing the separate line at the exact amount.
Basis: Rule 33 CGST Rules r/w s.15 CGST Act
Rule 33 fails if authorisation did not exist WHEN you paid — a retrospective letter does not cure it.
A reimbursement bundled into your fee line cannot be excluded — Rule 33(ii) demands a separate invoice line.
Double exposure: a failed pass-through attracts 18% GST AND inflates s.44ADA gross receipts toward the ₹50L/₹75L ceiling.
Relabelling an amount "pure agent reimbursement" changes nothing — the conditions are factual, not cosmetic.
FAQ
I bill statutory fees to clients at exact cost. Is that automatically GST-free?
No. Exact cost is only ONE Rule 33 condition (Explanation (d)). You also need the client's prior authorisation, the client — not you — to be liable to the authority, a separate invoice line, no title or own-use, and the supply to be additional to your own service. Fail any one and the amount joins your value of supply under s.15(2)(c) at 18%.
Why does a failed pass-through hurt twice?
First, 18% GST on the amount. Second, it counts inside your gross professional receipts for s.44ADA — pushing you toward the ₹50 lakh (or ₹75 lakh with ≤5% cash) presumptive ceiling. Architects routing large statutory payments through their own account have lost presumptive eligibility on money that was never their income.
The client authorised the payment after I made it. Does that count?
Risky. Rule 33(i) contemplates payment on the recipient's authorisation — acting first and papering later does not establish that you acted as an authorised agent when you paid. Get authorisation in the engagement letter or by written instruction before paying.
My structural engineer's fee — pure agent or not?
Usually not. If you appoint and direct the engineer to deliver YOUR design engagement, the fee is an input to your own supply and fails Rule 33(iii). It can qualify only where the client contracts directly with the engineer, is liable for the fee, and you merely make an authorised payment.
What about "speed money" for approvals?
Never. It is not a statutory fee, never qualifies as a reimbursement, and giving an undue advantage to a public servant is an offence under ss.8–9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It cannot be paid, facilitated, or disguised in an invoice.
Set the pass-through system up once, properly
Harun Raaj & Associates · Chartered Accountants, Visakhapatnam. Engagement-letter authorisation clauses, invoice formats with compliant reimbursement lines, and the evidence file that survives a GST audit.
Book a conversation →Educational tool, not professional advice. Verdicts are indicative applications of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to your answers; the underlying facts, documents and timing control the actual treatment. Consult a chartered accountant before excluding any amount from taxable value.