TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act, 1994 and the notifications issued there under ceased to exist. In the instant matter the only applicable law is the GST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the time of supply of services is to be guided by section 13(2) of the GST Act - Hence, the remaining unadjusted amount of ₹ 13,80.74,549/- as on 01.07.2017 has to be construed as if it was credited into the account of the appellant on the date of 01.07.2017 only, which will attract GST on such amount on that date itself. Hence, there are no force in the argument of the appellant that section 13 (2) of the GST Act, 2017 will not be applicable in the instant case. In respect of the goods and services provided by the appellant to KMRCL post introduction of GST, the amount of ₹ 13,80,74,549/- can only be considered as advance paid as on 01.07.2017, and in the absence of any exemption of mobilization advance from tax under GST regime, the entire amount of ₹ 13,80,74,549/- becomes taxable on the said date. There are no infirmity in the ruling pronounced by the WBAAR - appeal dismissed. - Case No. 11/WBAAAR/APPEAL/2019 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2019 - SRI. A.P.S SURI, AND SRI. DEVI PRASAD KARANAM, MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o its account on that date as mobilisation advance and GST is leviable thereon accordingly. The value of the supply of works contract service in the subsequent invoices as and when raised should, therefore, be reduced to the extent of the advance adjusted in such invoices. To avoid double taxation, the GST should, therefore be charged on the net amount that remains after such adjustment. 5. The Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the above Advance Ruling with the prayer to set aside/modify the impugned Advance Ruling passed by the WBAAR or pass any such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the following grounds: a) No tax was leviable on the mobilization advance under the erstwhile Tax regime. b) The Appellant argued that the applicability of GST in the instant case would be governed by the transitional provision under section 142(10) of the GST Act which is: Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the goods or services or both supplied on or after the appointed day in pursuance of a contract entered into prior to the appointed day shall be liable to tax under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lump-sum amount was received on 24.06.2011 and the appellant had determined the applicability of taxes on the same as per the extant provision. The time of supply as per the provision of section 13 (2) of the GST Act, the applicability of GST on issuance of invoice or upon payment whichever is earlier, only applies for those considerations received post introduction of GST. g) An amendment in the statute or a change in law as in the instant case by way of introduction of GST shall be applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively unless specifically provided for. 6. During the course of hearing the Appellant reiterated their submissions and added that the decisions of the Tribunals are binding on all field formations unless overruled by a superior judicial authority. In their oral submission before this appellate authority, the appellant further submitted that they have already paid the GST on the entire amount of ₹ 13,80,74,549/-, as and when the bills were raised by them. They further added that the concept of deemed date of receipt used by the WBAAR does not have legal acceptance. 7. The respondent submitted that the balance amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions of the Tribunal in the case of Thermax Instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-I [2016 (42) S.T.R. 19(Tri.-Mumbai)] = 2015 (12) TMI 1222 - CESTAT MUMBAI and GB Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Tiruchirapalli [2017 (52) S.T.R. 313(Tri.-Chennai)] = 2017 (1) TMI 1674 - CESTAT CHENNAI , wherein the Ld. CESTAT had observed that the mobilization advance is like earnest money and argued that this nature has not changed after implementation of GST and hence it will be covered under the express proviso to section 2 (31) of the GST Act which excludes deposits from the definition of consideration unless it is adjusted against supplies. It is observed that the advance was received in the year 2011 and a considerable part of the advance remained unadjusted as on 30.06.2017. The present case originated due to introduction of GST with effect from 01.07.2017. However, the observations of the Ld. Tribunals in the cases relied upon by the appellant were clearly within the ambit of the legal provisions of Service Tax which was prevalent, when the decisions were proclaimed. In the present case, the question relates to whether the unadjusted part of the advanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
