2020 (7) TMI 110 - AAR - GST

Residential Complexes or not - building consists of more than one residential unit - One unit is occupied by the customers and the other units are occupied by his father, brother and sister, who are all not depending upon the customer, Single residential unit or not - N/N. 11 of 2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. HELD THAT - Advance ruling can be extended only in respect of supplies made or intend to be made by the applicant based on the facts of such supply. As the details or transaction of supply on which advance ruling is sought is not furnished the application cannot be admitted and Accordingly rejected. The application is not admitted as the applicant failed to furnish the details of supply made or proposed to be made by him for which ruling was sought.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 11/2017-CT (Rate) regarding the tax rate applicable to the supply, erection, and commissioning of elevators & escalators in buildings with multiple residential units.
2. Determining the eligibility for a concessional tax rate under Sl.No. 3(v)(b) of the notification for works contract services provided to single residential units.
3. Requirement of furnishing details of the supply made or intended to be made for seeking an advance ruling.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a query on the availability of the tax rate under Notification 11/2017-CT (Rate) for buildings with multiple residential units. The applicant sought clarification on whether a building with multiple residential units, where one unit is occupied by the customer and others by family members not dependent on the customer, qualifies as a single residential unit for tax purposes. The applicant failed to provide necessary transaction details, leading to the rejection of the application due to insufficient information for an advance ruling.

2. The applicant presented scenarios of individual customers constructing residential units and seeking works contract services for lifts. However, the applicant did not provide essential details such as quotations or supply requests from buyers. Despite multiple opportunities to furnish transaction specifics, the applicant did not comply, resulting in the rejection of the application for an advance ruling.

3. The Authority emphasized that advance rulings are contingent upon the details of supplies made or intended to be made by the applicant. Since the applicant did not provide transaction details and indicated a lack of acceptance of contracts involving single residential units, the application was rejected for not meeting the necessary criteria for granting an advance ruling.

Conclusion:
The Authority ruled that the application was not admitted due to the applicant's failure to furnish essential details of the supply made or proposed for seeking an advance ruling. The rejection was based on the lack of transaction specifics necessary for evaluating the eligibility for a concessional tax rate under the relevant notification.