9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 96 - AAR - GSTPermission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - Rate of GST - three separate contracts awarded to a contractor for establishment of a Solar Power Plant - Contract for supply of Goods - Contract for supply of Erection and Installation Services - Contract for supply of Operation and Maintenance Service for a period of 5 years after Commissioning. HELD THAT - The prayer made by the applicant for withdrawal of the application with a declaration that fees already paid shall not be claimed as refund and the same stands as forfeited is heard - Since the applicant withdrew the application, there are no reason to go into the merits of the case and it is dismissed as withdrawn and therefore no Ruling is given.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of GST rates on three separate contracts for the establishment of a Solar Power Plant. 2. Applicability of GST rates on supply of goods, erection and installation services, and operation and maintenance services. 3. Applicant's stance on the legal provisions and relevant tariff notifications for each contract. 4. Request for withdrawal of the Advance Ruling by the applicant. Analysis: 1. The applicant, a registered firm engaged in manufacturing high-efficiency PV modules and providing EPC solutions, entered into three contracts with APGENCO for setting up a solar power plant. These contracts included supply of goods, installation cum erection, and operation and maintenance services for a period of 5 years post-commissioning. The applicant sought clarification on the applicable GST rates for each contract. 2. The applicant's interpretation of the law and facts was based on specific tariff notifications. For the supply of goods, the applicant referred to a notification subjecting 'Solar Power Generating System' to a 5% IGST levy. Installation and erection services were considered taxable at 18% IGST under construction services, and operation and maintenance services were deemed taxable at 18% IGST under maintenance and repair services. 3. The applicant argued that each contract should be treated separately for GST purposes. The supply contract was viewed as falling under the 5% GST rate, while the erection and installation contract was seen as taxable at 18% GST due to its nature as a service for construction. Similarly, the operation and maintenance contract was believed to attract an 18% GST rate based on the services provided. 4. During the personal hearing, the applicant requested withdrawal of the Advance Ruling, citing a clarification received regarding the GST rates applicable to the establishment of a solar power generating system. The applicant acknowledged the amendment in the GST rate notification, which deemed 70% of the gross consideration as supply of goods taxable at 5%, and the remaining 30% as supply of services taxable at 18%. 5. Considering the applicant's withdrawal of the application and declaration not to claim a refund of fees paid, the Authority dismissed the case as withdrawn, refraining from issuing a ruling on the matter. The withdrawal was based on the applicant's satisfaction with the clarification received regarding the GST rates for the establishment of the solar power generating system, as per the amended notification. This detailed analysis highlights the legal interpretation, applicant's arguments, and the final decision of the Authority based on the withdrawal of the application by the applicant.
|
