9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion whether GST is applicable on one time concession fees charged by the appellant in respect of their property at Anjuna, Goa, which is given to M/s Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd for a long term lease of 60 years for development of infrastructure for financial business or private investment made on DBFOT (Design, Build, Finance, operate and Transfer) providing; exclusive right, license and authority to construct, operate and maintain the project. 2. The Appellant claimed exemption as per Sr. No.41 of the Notification No 12/2017 -Central Tax (Rate), dated 28/06/2017 as amended by Notification No. 32/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), dated 13/10/2017. 3. The Authority for Advance Ruling, Goa vide its Order no. Goa/GAAR/4/2018-19/2429 held that the service provided by the Appellant, does not satisfy the criteria mentioned at Sr. No.41 of the Notification No. 12/2017 (CGST (Rate) dated 28/06/2017) as amended by Notification No. 32/2017 (CGST (Rate) dated 13/10/2017. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefits of the said Notification (as amended) and the activity of long term lease is liable for levy of GST. 4. Aggrieved by the said Advance ruling, the Appellant has filed the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore ownership of Central Government, State Government, Union Territory to the industrial units or the developers in any industrial or financial business area." 10. The following issues are carefully examined to understand the legislative intent.- (i) The event in the Notification deals with grant of, "long term lease of thirty years, or more." (ii) The lease should be "of industrial plots or plots for development of infrastructure for financial business." (iii) The lease should be provided by, "the State Government Industrial Development Corporation or Undertakings or by any other entity having 50 per cent, or more ownership of Central Government, State Government, Union Territory". (iv) The lease should be provided to, "the industrial units or the developers in any industrial or financial business area." 11. Before, discussing the merit of the appellant's contention, the concession agreement between M/s. Goa Tourism Development Corporation and M/s. Myrayash Hotels Private Limited was perused. The Para 2.1.1. & 2.1.2 of the said agreement have sketched the brief details of the purpose of the agreement, which reads as below;- 2.1.1 (a) Design, Build, Finance, Operate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, to decide the issue, it is essential to understand what is an 'industrial plot' and 'financial business.' As the term "industrial plot" has not been defined in the GST Act, an inference must be drawn from the common meaning of the said term. Accordingly, this authority examined this issue in general parlance. An Industrial area in Goa is statutorily defined by the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965. So it is evident the primary agency entrusted for development of Industrial plots in Goa is the Goa Industrial Development Corporation and not the Appellant. 16. The Appellant and its concessionaire i.e. M/s Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. are planning to construct a Hotel on the empty land for providing services covered by entry No. Heading No.5963 (Accommodation, food and beverage services). It could have also utilized the same plot for extending its activity to provide these services. Instead it has leased the plot for development of same asset which will again be utilized for providing the services of accommodation and other allied Services by the lessee M/s Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. M/s Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. is again an entity which will take up the project on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the observation made by Hon'ble High Court in this judgment. The Hon'ble High Court has clearly upheld the taxability of leasing of the land. 19. Regarding Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Builders Association of Navi Mumbai and Neelsidhi Realties Vs. Union of India and Others (WP. No. 12194 of 2017), the claim of the appellant is legally incorrect as that matter is identical to the present issue. In the said case City Industrial and Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited had allotted plots to the various entities on long lease of 60 years for residential-cum-commercial constructions and three/four star hotel in Panvel and Navi Mumbai and collected one-time lease premium amount from them. The said writ petition was filed to challenge the demand of GST on this one-time lease premium. However, the Hon'ble High Court has considered this upfront amount taxable for GST as consideration for supply of service and dismissed the petition. 20. Further, the order of the Uttar Pradesh Advance Ruling authority in the case of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority referred by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion which is plain and unambiguous - A statute is an edict of the legislature- Language employed in statute is determinative factor of legislative intent, [para 13]. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. V/S Collector of C. Ex. and Customs, Hyderabad [1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)] held that interpretation of statute - Exemption being in the nature of exception to be construed strictly at the stage of determination whether assessee falls within its terms or not and in case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. 25. On a careful reading of the correct position of the statute vis-a-vis the appellant's contention, it clearly emerges that the language employed in the statute as discussed in para 10 (i) to (iv) above are plain and unambiguous and it amply conveys the legislative intent. The appellant does not satisfy the criteria laid down in Sr. No. 41 of the Notification No. 12/2017 (CGST (Rate) dated 28/06/2017) as amended by Notification No. 32/2017 (CGST (Rate) dated 13/10/2017. 26. The decisions cited by the appellant are not relevant to the facts of the present case. 27. The decision of the AAR Goa in the present case is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
