2022 (4) TMI 1397 - AAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling Application - Classification of supply - rate of GST on sub-contractor - Tariff Head applicable to Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor) - HELD THAT - The questions for obtaining an Advance Ruling can be asked by a supplier of goods or services or both, only in relation to the supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken and not in relation to any supply of goods or services or both which has already been undertaken and completed before. Since provisions of Sec 95 (a) are very clear and unambiguous that a supplier can file application for advance ruling only in relation to the supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken and in the subject case the supply is supposed to have been completed on 31.12.2019 as per the impugned Work Order, the questions raised by the applicant cannot be answered, in terms of Section 95. The Advance Ruling application is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of GST rate to Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor) - 12% or 18%?
2. Determination of the applicable Tariff Head for Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of GST Rate
The applicant, Aryan Contractor Pvt. Ltd., sought an advance ruling to determine the GST rate applicable to their services provided as a subcontractor. They highlighted their scope of work, including activities related to mining, quarrying, and construction for various projects. The applicant contended that if the main contractor is awarded a works contract for construction, the subcontractor falls under the 12% GST slab. However, the concerned officer did not provide any submissions on this matter.

Issue 2: Determination of Tariff Head
During the proceedings, the applicant presented relevant documents, including a work order, to support their activities. The authority examined the work order dated 31.10.2018, which outlined the scope of work, completion timeline, and provisions for liquidated damages in case of delays. The authority noted that the contract completion date was 31.12.2019 and observed that the applicant had not demonstrated any extension granted beyond this date. As per the CGST Act, an advance ruling can only be sought for activities being undertaken or proposed, not for those already completed. Therefore, since the supply was supposed to be completed by 31.12.2019, the questions raised by the applicant could not be answered under Section 95 of the CGST Act.

In conclusion, the authority did not provide answers to the questions regarding the applicable GST rate and Tariff Head for Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor) due to the completion of the relevant supply before the application was filed. The ruling emphasized the limitations on seeking advance rulings for activities already undertaken, as per the provisions of the CGST Act.