Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAAR GST - 2020 (8) TMI AAAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 527 - AAAR - GSTTime Limitation for filing appeal - delay of 60 days - Renting services - Residential unit on Industrial plot - Exemption from GST - whether the same is an activity of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence which is exempted from GST by virtue of entry No 12 of Notification No 12/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017? HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 100(2) of the CGST Act mandates that an appeal should be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order that is sought to be challenged. However, in terms of the proviso to Section 100(2) of the said Act, the Appellate Authority is empowered to allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of 30 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial period of 30 days - In the instant case, the appeal filed against the Advance Ruling order dated 25.09.2019 is evidently belated by 60 days. The appellant, however, has not explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, and considering the fact that the delay is within the condonable powers of this Authority, we are inclined to suo moto condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed with a decision on the merits of this case. Renting services - Held that:- KIADB is a statutory body constituted for the development of industries in the industrial areas of Karnataka. Lands are allotted by the KIADB to entrepreneurs only after the proposals for the proposed utilization of the land for industrial projects is approved by the competent authority. Therefore, it can be justifiably inferred that the land was allotted to the owner for industrial purposes and not for residential purposes. Therefore, the building on this land allotted by KIADB cannot be construed as residential building and consequently the building rented out by the owner to the Appellant was not a residential building. Therefore, the transaction between the owner Shri. Banraji B.H and the Appellants is not one of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence. This transaction is in the nature of renting of non-residential building and hence is liable to be taxed under Heading 997212 and chargeable to tax at 18% GST under entry Sl.No 16 of Notification No 11/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017. Taxability of the charges for the additional facilities provided - Held that:- The lower Authority’s finding that this amounts to supply of goods as per entry no.1(c) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act which reads “any transfer of title in goods under an agreement which stipulates that property in goods shall pass at a future date upon payment of the full consideration as agreed, is a supply of goods”. Accordingly, it is liable to tax at the rate applicable to each of the goods at the time the delivery of the goods is given to Sodexo Food Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. So also, the security services provided by the Appellant is liable to tax as applicable under SAC 998529 at 18% under entry 23(ii) of Notification No.11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Decision of AAR upheld.
|