Appellate Orders

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the appellant beyond the normal time limit of 30 days is condoned in terms of proviso to Section 100(2) of CGST Act,2017 and the appeal will be taken up for consideration on merits.

The AAAR noted that the Appellant contended that the Advance Ruling was pronounced on 27.09.2021 on the basis of an amendment which was not operational as on the date of pronouncing Ruling. The AAAR felt that the AAR need to take note of the contention of the Appellant & pass a speaking order with reference to them. On being contended by the Appellant, the AAAR also noted that the decision was not taken by same members of AAR who have heard the case. This is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The AAAR ordered that the Ruling of the AAR, Rajasthan dated 27.09.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to AAR to decide the application de-novo after considering all the contentions of the appellant.

The Ruling of AAR, Rajasthan dated 17.06.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AAR to decide the application afresh after considering the judgement dated 21.04.2023 of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta delivered in the case M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. Versus West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Service Tax.

The Appellant have withdrawn their appeal application as the GST Council had issued clarification and notification in respect of the question on which Advance Ruling was sought. In light of the withdrawal of the Appeal by the Appellant, the AAAR dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

It was held by the authority that

 (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.

 (ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant.

 (iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable. 

(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017. 

It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is modified hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

It was held by the authority that 

(i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract. 

(ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant.

 (iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable. 

(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017.

 It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is modified hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

It was held by the authority that

 (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract. 

(ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant. 

(iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable.

 (iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017. 

It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is modified hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

It was held by the authority that (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.

 (ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant. 

(iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable. 

(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017. It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

It was held that 1. M/s Jaipur Smart City Limited are covered under Governmental Authority as defined in the explanation to clause (16) of Section 2 of the IGST Act, 2017. 

2. The supply related to 'fire fighting system with pump house in ABD Area & Purohitji ka Katla including 5 years Operating & Maintenance installation’ provided by the appellant to M/s JSCL is considered as supply of services provided to the Governmental Authority and are covered under Item number (vi) in Column (3) of serial number 3 of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 24/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 21.09.2017

 3. The said services are liable to attract GST @ 12% (i.e. 6% CGST & 6% SGST) during the contracted period only up to 31.12.2021 as after that in column no. (3) of Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 the words “a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity” have been omitted vide Notification No. 22/2021- Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2021 w.e.f. 01.01.2022. 

4. In respect of amount paid as NOC for road cutting to Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax ( Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 16/2018 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the appellant are liable to pay GST @18% (i.e. 9% CGST + 9% SGST) as a recipient under RCM. 

5. The appellant are liable to pay GST on recovery of road cutting charges from M/s JSCL @18% (i.e. 9% CGST + 9% SGST).

It was held that the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan has erred in pronouncing the impugned supply as mixed supply. Further it was held that the supply of coaching service by the appellant along with supply of goods/printed material/test papers, uniform, bags and other goods to their students is composite supply and their principal supply is coaching services. The Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2021-22/35 dated 28.12.2021 was modified to this extent.