|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1001 Records
-
2018 (12) TMI 890
Release of goods - contention of petitioner is that despite the fact that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of proposed tax and penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 still the goods are not being released - Held that:- The respondent no. 4 has no authority in law to dictate respondent no. 3 in such a manner. Issuance of such direction by respondent no. 4 is blatantly illegal and without any authority of law.
The Custom Department has not passed any order of detention/confiscation of the said goods under the Customs Act.
The respondents directed to release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith and report about the compliance within three days on affidavit.
-
2018 (12) TMI 889
Extension of time limit for filing FORM GST TRAN-1 - input tax credit - Held that:- The first respondent has already forwarded a letter of the petitioner dated 25.04.2018 to the Nodal Officer and the same is still pending with the GSTN. It is further stated that the time granted was upto 31.03.2019 to file Form GST TRAN-1.
The Nodal Officer, in consultation with the GSTN shall take note of the grievance expressed by the petitioner/assessee and forward the same to the Grievance Committee, which in turn, shall take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 844
Classification of services - Rate of GST - Composite supply of works contract - MEP activities (Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Works) undertaken by the Applicant - whether taxable at 12% or otherwise? - benefit of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. 01/2018 dated 25th January 2018 - supplies are in relation to an housing project enjoying Infra status - F No 13/6/2009-INF dated 30th March 2017 of Government of India - compete installation testing and commissioning and satisfactory handing order of substation electrical works, HT & LT cabling works, DG and cabling works, street light and cabling.
Held that:- The contract like the one at hand which includes Design, engineering, work laying of RCC Hume pipe/GI pipe etc. for storm waterline and construction of chambers involves more than two taxable supplies in the nature of resources, material and machinery - large number of service receivers of such bundle of services mostly expect plumbing work to be provided as a package in the ordinary course of business. In the light of above observation the plumbing contract constitute a composite supply as defined u/s 2(30) of the GST Act.
Works Contract as is essentially a contract of service which may also involve supply of goods in the execution of the contract. It is basically a composite supply of both goods and services. In a general sense, a contract of works, may relate to both immovable and movable property - it can be seen that the term works contract has been restricted to contract for building, construction, fabrication, repair etc. of any immovable property only.
The draft contract for plumbing work is a composite supply of works contract as defined in S. 2(119) of the GST Act.
The acts to be committed by the applicant cannot be divided into two parts, namely supply of goods and services which are in fact inseparable - thus, the plumbing contract is indivisible works contract pertaining to immovable property within the scope of section 2(119) of the GST Act.
Compete installation testing and commissioning and satisfactory handing order of substation electrical works, HT & LT cabling works, DG and cabling works, street light and cabling - Held that:- The applicant would be required to do various acts which includes design, supply, installation and commissioning of substation that is electrical infrastructure. This is also a turnkey project contract like plumbing contract discussed in the earlier part of this ruling - electrical contract which involves supply of taxable goods and services is a composite supply as defined u/ s 2(30) of the GST Act and the said composite supply is works contract as defined u/ 2(119) Of the CST Act.
Rate of GST - MEP (Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Works) activities by availing the benefit of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No 01/2018 dated 25th January 2018 - taxable at 12% or not? - Held that:- The applicant has not submitted any details / evidence such as agreement entered into with a developer/ builder for the provisions Of MEP services to an affordable housing project. Therefore in the absence of detailed information in relation to housing project it is not possible for this authority to reach at definite conclusion.
Ruling:- MEP activities (Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Works) undertaken by the applicant falls within the definition of composite supply of works contract as defined under Section 2(119) of CGST Act.
-
2018 (12) TMI 843
Levy of CGST/MGST/IGST - fixed fee received by the PIL as a consideration for brewing / manufacturing, packing and supply of Products i.e. alcoholic liquor for human consumption - Scope of supply - service or not? - Held that:- The applicant has entered into an agreement for brewing/manufacturing, packaging and supplying beer only because PIL has surplus manufacturing and licensed capacity at its bottling unit. As per the agreement the applicant would pay to PIL such costs for purchasing the goods mentioned above and therefore they are effectively their own goods. In fact the agreement mentions that PIL shall maintain in force, at all times during the term Of the Agreement, full and complete insurance cover for Products, raw materials and ingredients used in the Manufacture of Products and work in process in relation thereto by nominating Crown as the beneficiary.
Since the applicant is paying costs to PIL for purchase of the said goods, there is no supply rendered by them to each other since as per the definition of supply of services. In the GST Law, the taxable event would be SUPPLY. Hence it is the most important part of the GST law, as it will determine the taxability or otherwise under the GST law. The definition of Supply in the CGST Act, is an inclusive one. It is contained in Section 7 of the CGST Act. Apart from Section 7, Schedules I to Ill are provided which explain various provisions related to supply.
From the transaction between the applicant and PIL, it is clear that in respect of the ‘costs’ paid and received there is no supply of goods/ services in the form of sale, transfer, barter, exchange, etc. and therefore there is no requirement to pay GST on such costs paid by the applicant to PIL However in respect of the ‘fixed costs’ paid by the applicant to PIL, it is very clear that the said fixed costs are paid to PIL because they are providing job work services to the applicant - For these services rendered there is a consideration which flows from the applicant to PIL in the form of ‘fixed costs’. The entire services rendered by PIL and the consideration paid by the applicant for receiving such services is in the course of furtherance on business of both, the applicant and PIL. Hence this amount is liable to tax under the GST Laws and such tax is payable by the supplier of service i.e. PIL.
What is service in this case the entire gamut of brewing/ manufacturing, packaging and supplying beer by PIL to the applicant, for which they are receiving fixed costs for job work as discussed above. If the applicant had brew/manufactured, packaged and supplied beer on their own account then their activity would not have been liable to tax under the GST laws since the supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption is not taxable under the GST laws - it is the job work which is a service provided by PIL that is required to be taxed.
Ruling:- The taxes have to be discharged by PIL on the fixed fee received and not on costs received.
Supply of beer per se is not taxable under GST. What is taxable in the subject case is the job work which is a service provided by PIL to the applicant, for which they are receiving consideration.
-
2018 (12) TMI 842
Detention of goods with vehicle - detention on the ground that the petitioner did not upload the Part-B e-way bill - Held that:- The respondent authority is directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on the petitioner's “furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 841
Detention of goods - Bank Guarantee - Penalty - Held that:- The issue is decided in the case of KANIYAMPARAMBIL STEELS [2018 (10) TMI 1518 - KERALA HIGH COURT], where it was held that The petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal. It will suffice if this Court recalls its judgment under review and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities not to encash the Bank guarantee until the statutory appeal is disposed of - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 840
Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 - input tax credit - migration to GST regime - Held that:- The petitioner may apply to the ninth respondent, the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner’s uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 839
Validity of assessment order - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Held that:- In modification of the judgment dated 23rd October 2018 it is held that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority-the fourth respondent-within two weeks from today, he will condone the delay that has occurred in the petitioner's pursuing its remedy before this Court - revision allowed.
-
2018 (12) TMI 838
Levy of GST/Service Tax - license fee and application fee called by whatever name for alcoholic liquor for human consumption - Held that:- The challenge to the relevant provisions of law have been rendered moot. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of in these terms.
-
2018 (12) TMI 767
Supply of service or not - direct transfer of BP business to MSPL and PM business to MPMPL - slump sale - related parties or not - input tax credit - notional consideration (percentage of the business transfer value) - Held that:- The Applicant has entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Merck Ltd (seller) wherein the seller has agreed to sell, transfer, convey, assign and deliver to the applicant or to any affiliates as directed by the applicant for the BPL business which would be transferred as a slump sale on a going concern basis. The Applicant has stated that BPL business means BP business, LS business and PM business as going concern as outlined in Definitions and Interpretations.
In respect of transfer of BP business to MSPL and PM business to MPMPL by the seller apparently it is seen and also claimed in the application by the applicant is that the applicant is only directing the seller to transfer these businesses to MSPL and MPMPL and this direction is as per the first agreement between the seller and the applicant - apparently the applicant has directed the seller for transference of these business to MSPL and MPMPL.
It is reiterated and clear that the role of the applicant is very crucial in respect of both the agreements as discussed above and without the directions of the applicant, the second agreement could not have materialized and further, in respect of all the terms of the second agreement as detailed above the applicant is an active party in the agreement as well and he and his directors have an active role in all aspects of the agreement, starting from terms relating to parties to agreement, transfer of the BP and PM business, Price and Termination which is very clear from these details of agreement - this role of the applicant is clearly a service covered in para 5 (e) of Schedule-II of Section 7 of the CGST Act, wherein the applicant is doing the act of giving direction to the seller for transfer of BP and PM businesses to MSPL and MP MPL respectively as per his directions and terms and conditions agreeable to him due to special authority in this regard, vested in him through the first agreement dated 21.06.2018 between him and the seller.
Levy of GST on notional consideration - Held that:- The present case involves provision of service as per para 5 (e) of Schedule II to Section 7, between related person where the applicant is stating that there is no consideration - the value is to be determined in terms of Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Input Tax Credit - notional consideration (percentage Of the business transfer value) - Held that:- The value is to be determined as per Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and therefore there is no requirement on our part to answer this question.
Ruling:- The applicant’s direction to the seller (directed in agreement dated 21 June 2018) for direct transfer of BP business to MSPL and PM business to MPMPL, respectively would qualify as a ‘supply between the applicant’ and ‘MSPL/MPMPL’.
The value is to be determined as per Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
-
2018 (12) TMI 766
Valuation - includibility - inclusion of amortized value of the tool received on FOC basis from the customer in assessable value - CBEC circular No. 47/21/2018-GST dated 08/06/2018 - Held that:- The goods owned by the OEM that are provided to a component manufacturer on FOC basis do not constitute supply as there is no consideration. The Board further clarified that the value of goods provided on FOC basis shall not be added to the value of supply of components. However, the case is different where the contractual obligation is cast upon the component manufacturer to provide moulds/ dies but the same have been supplied by OEM on FOC basis and in such cases, the amortised cost of such moulds and dies shall be added to the value of supply of component.
Once it is established that the obligation to provide tools on FOC basis is on the customer then the question of adding the amortised value of tools supplied by the customer does not arise. However, the situation is reverse where the obligation to use tools is on the applicant but provision for the same is made by the OEM on FOC basis.
Ruling:- The amortized value of the tool received on FOC basis from the customer is not required to be included in the value of finished goods manufactured and supplied by the applicant to the customer.
-
2018 (12) TMI 765
Detention of goods and vehicle - Section 129 of the GST Act - Held that:- The respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on his “furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 711
Levy of GST - electronic commerce operator or not - money paid by the customer directly to the driver of the cab for the service of the trip - Held that:- In the instant case the transportation of passenger service is provided by the taxi drivers by using a software application. Transportation of passengers is a taxable service liable to GST. The provision of this service by the taxi driver to the passenger is a ‘supply’ within the scope of supply given in Section 7 of the CGST Act since the service is provided for a consideration. The Appellant on the other hand has developed a digital platform which aggregates the taxi drivers on one common platform. The service of transportation of passengers is supplied by the taxi drivers using the digital application developed by the Appellant. The Appellant manages the digital application which facilitates the supply of the service of transportation of passengers.
On completion of the service Appellant sends an invoice to the customer through the digital network facility which is payable by the consumer to the taxi driver. Therefore the appellant M/S. OPTA Cabs Pvt Ltd is an “electronic commerce operator” in terms of the definition given in Section 2(45) of the CGST Act.
The argument of the Appellant that the taxi services are merely booked through it and not supplied through it is not a tenable argument. Further, the fact that the ecommerce operator is not receiving the amount from the customer is also not a valid consideration since the e-commerce operator is deemed to have supplied the service in terms of Section 9 (5) read with the notification.
Ruling:- The services of transportation of passengers supplied through the Appellant’s electronic platform and digital network would be liable to tax at the hands of the Appellant.
-
2018 (12) TMI 710
Classification of goods - HIDPE Woven Tarpaulin - whether classified under HSN 6306 of GST tariff? - Held that:- In view of the Note 1(h) to Section XI of the GST Tariff Act, the tarpaulins of IIDPE woven fabrics, laminated as per specification of IS 7903:2017, being expressly excluded, do not merit classification under Chapter 63.
Ruling of the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling pronounced, 2018 (8) TMI 874 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL [2018 (8) TMI 874 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL], is upheld in its entirety.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 709
Extension of Time limit for submission of TRAN-1 - Held that:- The concerned Commissioner/ Nodal Officer is directed to take appropriate decision on the representations of the respective Petitioners before us. The entire exercise of examining the cases of the Petitioners through the channel, shall be completed latest by 31st January, 2019 - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 708
Bail application - Input tax credit - Sections 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - Held that:- Considering the period of custody, the petitioner is enlarged on bail - Accordingly, petitioner namely, Satya Prakash Singh @ S.P.Singh @ Satya Prakash is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur.
The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and till completion of the investigation, he must appear before the Investigating Authority once a fortnight.
-
2018 (12) TMI 707
Profiteering - purchase of flats - benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed - refund of appropriate amount alongwith Interest - Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 in this case? - quantum of profiteering.
Held that:- Section 171 deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC - In the instant case though rationalization of tax had not resulted in the reduction in the tax rate, the benefit of ITC had been extended to all the goods and services which were utilized by any builder which was not available in the pre-GST era. This fact has not been denied by the Respondent - Since Section 171 not only deals with passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax but also deals with passing on the benefit of ITC therefore the contention made by the Respondent is legally not correct to the extent that there had been increase in the rate of tax from 5.25% to 12% and then 8% and no benefit could be passed on by him to the Applicants as the Respondent had become entitled to claim ITC the benefit of which was required to be passed on by him to the Applicants as per the provisions of Section 171.
It is also apparent from the returns that when compared to the pre- GST period where 86% of the tax liability was paid in cash after availing ITC, in the post GST period the entire amount of tax liability had been paid through ITC, which shows that the entire 12% GST liability was paid through ITC while 12% GST was being collected by him from the Applicants. Therefore this Authority is of the view that the ratio of the ITC to the taxable turnover calculated by the DGAP is correct and the Respondent has not placed any concrete facts or reasons on record to dispute the same.
It is absolutely clear that the excess ITC was available to the Respondent the benefit of which he was required to pass on to the Applicants. The Respondent cannot appropriate this benefit as this is a concession given by the Government from it’s own tax revenue to reduce the prices being charged by the builders from the vulnerable section of society which cannot afford high value apartments. The Respondent is not being asked to extend this benefit out of his own account and he is only liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to which he has become entitled by virtue of the grant of ITC on the Construction Service by the Government.
Quantum of profiteering - Held that:- The Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the price to be realized from the buyers of the flats in commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. Since the present investigation is only up to 28.02.2018 any benefit of ITC which shall accrue subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent. He shall not only pass on the benefit as has been mentioned above to the 109 Applicants who are before us but to all the 2476 buyers as they are identifiable.
Penalty - Held that:- The Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty - Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the above Act read with rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
Application disposed off.
-
2018 (12) TMI 651
Agricultural Produce or not? - Nature of warehoused goods - tea produce - Circular No. 16/16/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017 - whether the tea leaves of the various qualities, which is precisely black tea, procured in bulk either from public tea auctions or directly from manufacturers of tea in 50 Kg bags, after undergoing various stages of the processing as detailed above, by the appellant's client i.e. Unilever, for storage in the warehouse owned by the appellant are agricultural produce or otherwise?
Held that:- The product being stored in the warehouse has got different name, character and uses from the green tea leaves which are cultivated in the tea gardens. Thus, the tea procured by Unilever is the manufactured product obtained from the different manufacturers - Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that the processes or treatments which are performed upon the green tea leaves amounts to manufacture as per the definition provided in the clause 72 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Whether this manufactured product i.e. the black tea can be construed as agricultural produce or not? - Held that:- Though the product is a produce out of cultivation of the plants, the same is obtained as a result of the specific manufacturing processes, carried out by the manufacturers on the original agricultural produce i.e. green tea leaves for making them suitable for consumption by imparting the desired flavor and colour - All these processes, which change the characteristics of the green tea leaves, are carried out by the manufacturers and not the cultivators or the producers of the green tea leaves as envisaged under the definition of the agricultural produce. Thus, the manufactured products do not fulfill the prescribed criteria of the agricultural produce, and thus cannot be considered as agricultural produce.
The said processes carried out on the green tea leaves do have bearing on the taste and colour of the tea, the appellant's contention that the above discussed processes carried out on the green tea leaves does not alter the characteristics of the tea is devoid of any merit and thus is not sustainable.
In the said warehouses rented out by the appellant, the appellant's client Unilever have also been blending the tea of the various qualities and packing the same in the packets of specified quantity as per the order received from their overseas buyers of the tea product. The blending of tea of various qualities into different proportion depending upon the requirements of their overseas customers may be construed as manufacturing process as the said process imparts different flavour, colour to suit the need for their customers. Thus, the appellant's client Unilever is undertaking the said manufacturing process, thus changing the essential characteristics of agricultural produce further, in the warehouse rented out by the appellant. Further, these processes of the blending and packaging are being performed by the appellant's client, which is certainly not the cultivator or producers of the tea. Thus, the blended and packaged product, which are to sold to the overseas markets, which are definitely not the primary markets as envisaged in the definition of the agricultural markets.
Thus, the stored products are not the agricultural produce as being projected by the appellant.
Ruling:- The products stored in the warehouse of the appellant are not the agricultural produce - the supply of warehouse services used for packing & storage of tea, under above mentioned facts & circumstances was/is not exempted vide Serial No 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017- Central tax (rate) - the said exemption granted vide the above notification is provided to the storage and warehousing services when provided in relation to the agricultural produce.
-
2018 (12) TMI 650
Levy of GST - zero rated export supply or not - export of service - photography service of diamonds - diamonds received on returnable basis - interstate supply or intrastate supply - Held that:- There is no doubt that the supply of service in the present case satisfies conditions at (i) and (ii) of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act. However, to qualify as an ‘export of services’ all the conditions must be satisfied simultaneously
As per condition at (iii) above, which pertains to place of supply of service and that the place of supply of service shall be outside India. Section 13 of the IGST Act contains provisions for determining the place of supply of services where the location of the supplier of the services or the location of the recipient of services is outside India - The place of supply of service shall be determined as per the provision contained in section 13 of the IGST Act. The said section has been divided into two parts. The subsections (3) to (13) provides for determination of place of supply of service, for service other than those listed in sub-sections (3) to (13) - In the instant case and from the perusal of transactions, except subsection (3) all other subsections are irrelevant for the purpose of determination of place of supply.
The main contention of the applicant for non-applicability of section 13 (3) (a) of the IGST Act regarding determination of place of supply is that the goods which are required to be made physically available must be owned or made available only by the recipient of services. This line of argument in this respect is hard to accept and is not tenable. However from the plain reading of subsection (a) of subsection 3 of Section 13 of the IGST Act, we do not agree with the contention of the applicant that the goods that are required for rendering service by the supplier must be owned or made available only by the recipient of services. As per above clause, recipient of service who want to avail services has to make goods physically available on direct or indirect directions to the service provider and it does not matter who owned the goods.
It is the cordial rule of interpretation that where the language used by the legislature is clear and unambiguous then the plain and natural meaning of the words should be supplied to the language used and resort to any rule of interpretation to unfold the intention is permissible only where there is any ambiguity.
There is no need that the goods physically required for rendering services must be owned by the recipient of the services, on the other hand it is sufficient for the recipient to make them physically available to the service provider for rendering services - Thus in this case the event of photography services pertaining to diamonds made physically available by the recipient of services to the provider of services is over and the service is clearly provided in India where the services are actually performed.
In the case before us it is seen that the location of the supplier of service is in Mumbai and the place of supply as determined as per provisions of section 13(3) (a) of the IGST Act is also in Mumbai, a place where the services are actually performed. And therefore as per section 8(2) of IGST Act, the services shall be treated as intrastate supply and would be liable to tax under the provisions of MGST Act and CGST Act.
Ruling:- The supply of photography service is liable to SGST under the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act, 2017) and CGST under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or IGST under Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act, 2017).
It is not a zero rated “export” supply within the meaning of Section 2(23) r/w Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017.
-
2018 (12) TMI 649
Levy of GST - rate of tax - transportation charges levied by the Applicant on PGCIL - supply contract/service contract - composite supply - Held that:- The Applicant is registered under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act 2017 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various products and solutions as required in Power Transmission and Distribution Sector. The Company has two divisions namely (i) Transformer division and (ii) Project division. The Applicant, as part of its activities has entered into following contracts with Power Grid Corporation of India Limited - As per second contract entered into with PGCIL in respect of various services to be undertaken upto successful commissioning of the project which includes planning, transportation of goods, loading and unloading etc for which seprate invoices and consideration has been stipulated. For the purpose of transportation of goods applicant avails the services of Goods Transport Agency Who transports the goods. Applicant also pays tax under reverse charge basis. Further applicant on back to back basis issues invoices and charges separate consideration for transportation services to PGCIL. It is this transportation charges/freight recovered by the applicant from PGCIL which is the subject matter of present application.
It can be safely concluded that the agreement for setting up Tower Package TW05 for +800KV transmission Line Project is a single indivisible contract. As the contract consists of two or more taxable supplies of goods and services and their combination, is a composite supply as defined u/s 2(30) of the GST Act - the first contract and the second contract is one single individual contract.
Whether this composite supplies constitute works contract as defined u/s 2(119) of the GST Act? - Held that:- The subject contracts are for commissioning of immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of said contracts. The contract before us thus are clearly covered by the definition of works contract as per section 2(119) of GST Act - The contract before us thus are clearly covered by the definition of works contract as per section 2(119) of GST Act - further, composite supplies in the nature works of contract as defined u/s 2(119) is declared as supply of services as per section 7 r/w entry 6(a) Of Schedule Il of the GST Act.
The impugned supply of transportation service is not supply of standalone service but integral component of composite supply in the nature of works contract as defined u/s 2 (119) and the entire contract is a supply of services as per entry 6(a) of schedule II of the GST Act and liable to pay GST as per entry at Sr. no. 3(ii) of the Notification No. 1/2017 of Central Tax (Rate) dt. 28/06/2017 and corresponding notification under the MGST Act.
GST is leviable on the transportation charges Levied by the Applicant on PGCIL.
GST in the present case would be liable at 18% as per entry at Sr. no. 3(ii) of the Notification No. 1/2017 of Central Tax (Rate) dt. 28/06/2017 and corresponding notification under the MGST Act.
........
|
