2024 (2) TMI 1356 - AAAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling - Service recipient is Government Entity or not - services provided by the Appellant in respect of work order No. TN-483 for Operation and Maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited - exempt vide serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT - The law covers two kinds of supplies under the purview of the AR mechanism (i) Supplies being undertaken - meaning thereby supplies which have begun but not concluded. Once the supply has been concluded it will cease to be covered by the term being undertaken ; (ii) Proposed to be undertaken - in the instant ease the supplies have already been concluded. Thus as the name implies the pronouncement with respect to them shall no longer be in the nature of Advance . As such these supplies cannot be covered by the Advance Ruling Mechanism. The Authority for Advance Ruling Rajasthan is right on not pronouncing the Ruling on Merits. Further the Appellant has contended that they are engaged in such work/supply regularly and wanted to know the taxability of the transaction for future references. In this context it is found that the impugned Ruling has been sought only for the specific Work Order No TN-483 for Operation and Maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations awarded by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to the appellant. Supplies under the work order have been undertaken during the period from 01.11.2019 to 30.04.2021. It is not in dispute that the supply has already been completed. Thus the question of entertaining any application subsequent to the period for which supply has already been completed does not arise. The Ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling. Rajasthan vide Order dated 01.06.2021 is right and needs no interference at this forum and the same is upheld.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) qualifies as a "Government Entity" under the relevant GST notifications.
2. Eligibility of tax exemption for services provided by the appellant to JVVNL under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Summary:

Issue 1: Determination of whether JVVNL qualifies as a "Government Entity"

The appellant sought a ruling to ascertain if JVVNL is a "Government Entity" as defined under clause (zfa) of para 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) observed that the words "or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity" were omitted from the notification as of 01.01.2022, resulting in the withdrawal of the tax exemption for pure services provided to government entities. Consequently, the AAR concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the said exemption from tax.

Issue 2: Eligibility of tax exemption for services provided to JVVNL

The appellant also sought a ruling on whether the services provided under work order No. TN-483 for the operation and maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations to JVVNL were wholly exempt from tax under the amended Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The AAR noted that the appellant applied for the Advance Ruling on 16.11.2021 for supplies effected up to 30.04.2021. However, as per Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, an Advance Ruling can only be provided for supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, not for completed transactions. Hence, the AAR did not pronounce a ruling on the question.

Appellate Authority's Findings:

The Appellate Authority reviewed the evidence and submissions, noting that the appellant's questions were interlinked. The Authority upheld the AAR's decision, agreeing that the supply was not covered under Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the supplies had already been concluded. The Authority emphasized that the term "advance ruling" pertains to supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, and once a supply is concluded, it no longer falls under the purview of the Advance Ruling mechanism.

The appellant's argument that the ruling was sought for future reference was dismissed, as the specific work order in question had already been completed. Consequently, the Authority found no grounds to interfere with the AAR's decision.

Order:

The Appellate Authority upheld the ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan, dated 01.06.2021, and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.