Appellate Orders

The ruling of the lower authority is upheld.

i.In respect of Q.No. 1, Sl. No. 5-B (Rent for locker provided in bus stand by the appellant) it is held to be an activity undertaken by the Municipality as a function entrusted under 243 W of the Constitution and the service of rent or fee collection for such a facility is neither a Supply of Goods nor a supply of Service as per Notification No. 14/2017-CT (Rate)

ii. In respect of Q.No. 2, the transaction between the corporation and the contractor as listed in Sl.No. 1. to 9, except at SI.No. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand &Sl.No.6 Bunk Stalls' of the said question, in the factual matrix presented, it is held to be an activity/transaction in relation to the activity/transaction undertaken by the appellant engaged as Public Authority and the same are covered under Notification No. 14/2017-C.T.(RATE) as amended

iii. In respect of Q.No. 2, Sl.No. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand & Sl. No. 6 -Bunk Stall' of the said question, the same is covered under Sl.No. 7 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as well as charging of tax on RCM basis under Sl.No. 5 of Notfn No. 13/2017-CT (Rate) subject to fulfillment of the conditions therein is available to appellant.

iv. In respect of supply of services of allowing road cutting, and the subsequent track renting, the situation being factual in as much gas the road cutting is followed by laying of cables by telephone companies for which track rent is collected, the supply would be a Composite Supply extended to this particular activity not extended to all types of road cutting activities.

i.In respect of Q.No. 1, Sl. No. 5-B (Rent for locker provided in bus stand by the appellant) it is held to be an activity undertaken by the Municipality as a function entrusted under 243 W of the Constitution and the service of rent or fee collection for such a facility is neither a Supply of Goods nor a supply of Service as per Notification No. 14/2017-CT (Rate).

ii. In respect of Q.No. 2, the transaction between the corporation and the contractor as listed in Sl.No. 1. to 9 and 13, except at SI.No. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand; 5C-Flower shop in bus stand in open space & Sl.No.7 Bunk Stalls' of the said question, in the factual matrix presented, it is held to be an activity/transaction in relation to the activity/transaction undertaken by the appellant engaged as Public Authority and the same are covered under Notification No. 14/2017-C.T.(RATE) as amended.

iii. In respect of Q.No. 2, Sl.NO. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand; 5C-Flower Shop in bus stand in open space & Sl. No. 7 -Bunk Stall' of the said question, the same is covered under Sl.No. 7 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as well as charging of tax on RCM basis under Sl.No. 5 of Notfn No. 13/2017-CT (Rate) subject to fulfillment of the conditions therein is available to appellant.
iv. In respect of supply of services of allowing road cutting, and the subsequent track renting, the situation being factual in as much gas the road cutting is followed by laying of cables by telephone companies for which track rent is collected, the supply would be a Composite Supply extended to this particular activity not extended to all types of road cutting activities.

The MAAAR did not interfere with the Advance Ruling bearing No. GST-ARA-06/2019-20/B-58 dated 15.12.2020 pronounced by the MAAR and held that the Appellant would be liable to pay IGST under the Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, attributable to the place of supply falling in the taxable territory as per Section 13(12) of the IGST Act, 2017.

The MAAAR modified the Ruling passed by the MAAR vide Order No. GST-ARA-20/2019-20/B-59 dated 15.12.2020 by holding that the entire gamut of activities undertaken by the Appellant at the behest of their Principal would be aptly classified under SAC 999294 prescribed at Sl. No. 600 of the Annexure to the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 and bearing the description “Other education and training services nowhere else classified”. As regards the question as to whether the activities under question will be considered as zero-rated supply in terms of Section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 and qualifies for ‘export of service’ in terms of  Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, it is, hereby, held that the said supply of services will not be considered as export of services on account of the  findings that the place of supply of the services under question, which are performance-based services in terms of Section 13(3)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017, will be in India, and not outside India, and thereby, not complying with the clause (iii) of the Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017. Thus, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable and hence, hereby, dismissed.

The MAAAR  rejected the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant i.e. M/s. Micro Instrument, to restore their Application dated 21.08.2019 seeking Rectification of Mistake in the MAAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22.03.2019, as the same had already been decided by the erstwhile Appellate Authority vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26A/2018-19 dated 11.12.2019 , and therefore, the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant was not legally maintainable and hence the same was liable to be rejected.

The MAAAR set aside the Ruling passed by the MAAR, wherein the Advance Ruling application filed by the Appellant has been declared as non- maintainable. It was further held by the MAAAR that the Maharashtra AAR should consider the subject application on merits. Accordingly, the application for the Advance Ruling was remitted to the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority for fresh consideration on merits. 

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that  the decision of the MAAR that the application is barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 for reasons given in the order. As regards the issue of denial of fair chance of hearing with sample, we hold that the Appellant may approach the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority with a fresh application along with the sample/reports of the products and in that case, the MAAR shall decide the issue on merits as per the provisions of law.

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that the Applicant was not entitled to avail Input Tax Credit in respect of taxes to be paid on the purchase of ‘Paver Blocks’ in terms of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that activities carried out by the Appellant would amount to supply in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the same would be liable for GST subject to the condition that the monthly subscription/contribution charged by the society from its members is more than Rs. 7500/- per month per member and the annual aggregate turnover of the society by way of supplying of services and goods is also Rs. 20 lakhs or more. Further, their second question regarding correctness of the GST liability on the basis of the illustrative invoices cannot be answered on account of the above stated reasons.