9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 660 - AAR - GSTLevy of GST on asset transfer - work of shifting raising of transmission lines owned by RRVPNL by M/s. Wonder Cement Ltd. - person liable to pay GST - Exemption vide Entry 4 of Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017. HELD THAT - The Superintending Engineer (T C), RRVPNL, Chittorgarh, has issued a Corrigendum Letter No. RVPN/SE/T C/COR/TECH/ F./D.973 dated 24.09.2019 in which the words GST @ 18% applicable on asset transfer should be read as the words GST @ 18% applicable on cost of Infrastructure for Value of Supply - After issue of the said corrigendum the question raised by the applicant turned redundant and therefore no advance ruling is required to be given.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under CGST Act and RGST Act for Advance Ruling. 2. Determination of liability to pay tax on goods or services. 3. Whether certain activities amount to supply under the GST Act. 4. Assessment of GST liability on asset transfer in the context of shifting power transmission lines. 5. Clarification on who is liable to pay GST in case of asset transfer. 6. Examination of GST exemption under Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax. 7. Analysis of whether immovable property transfer constitutes a supply under GST. Analysis: 1. The applicant, a registered manufacturer cum supplier under GST, sought an advance ruling on whether the shifting of power transmission lines owned by RRVPNL involves an asset transfer liable for GST. The applicant has been undertaking the work under RRVPNL's supervision, with costs borne by the applicant based on RRVPNL's circulars and estimates. 2. The main issue revolved around whether the activity constitutes an asset transfer subject to GST. RRVPNL initially demanded 18% GST based on the concept of asset transfer. However, a corrigendum issued by RRVPNL clarified that the GST was applicable on the cost of infrastructure for the 'Value of Supply,' not on asset transfer. 3. The jurisdictional officer highlighted the definitions under the CGST Act, emphasizing that for a transaction to be considered a supply, there must be a consideration flowing from one party to another. The officer also referred to Schedule II of the Act regarding the transfer of business assets. 4. The applicant argued that the transmission lines, being immovable property, do not fall under the definition of goods for GST purposes. The applicant contended that even if there was an asset transfer, it should not attract GST as immovable property transfers are not subject to GST. 5. After considering all arguments and submissions, the Authority concluded that the issuance of the corrigendum by RRVPNL resolved the question raised by the applicant regarding asset transfer. As the issue was no longer relevant post the corrigendum, the Authority ruled that no advance ruling was necessary in this case. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the final ruling given by the Authority for Advance Ruling in Rajasthan.
|
