2021 (11) TMI 859 - AAR - GST

Admissibility of application - Classification of services - rate of GST - EPC contract engaged in works, viz; site grading, earth filling, road works, storm water drains, utility corridor, street lighting, water storage and distribution system - civil contractor engaged in civil construction works, viz; prefabricated PUP (polyurethane) Administrative building, training centre, technology facilitation centre, etc. - HELD THAT - It is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. Further, as per Section 103 (1) of the GST Act, the ruling is binding only on the applicant and the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of the applicant. In the case at hand, the applicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. The application is not admitted, under Section 98(2) read with Section 95 (a) of CGST Act, 2017/TNGST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicable GST rate for EPC contract works
2. Applicable GST rate for civil construction works

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a joint venture registered under GST, sought a ruling on the GST rate for EPC contract works involving site grading, road works, etc. They had engaged a contractor for infrastructure development and claimed the applicable rate as 12% based on being a Public Sector Undertaking. The jurisdictional authority advised them to seek an advance ruling.

2. Additionally, the applicant sought clarification on the GST rate for civil construction works like administrative buildings, training centers, etc. They argued for a 12% rate, being a Public Sector Undertaking. The applicant had registered as a Tax Deductor under CGST Act, deducting TDS at 2%.

3. During the virtual hearing, the applicant's representative reiterated their submissions, emphasizing the need for clarity on the applicable rates for services received. However, the authority noted that advance rulings can only be sought by suppliers, not recipients, as per Section 95 of the GST Act. Thus, the question on determining GST rates for services received was deemed inadmissible.

4. The Central Jurisdictional authority confirmed no pending proceedings on the issues raised, while the State Jurisdictional authority did not provide any report. The authority examined the applicant's submissions and clarified that advance rulings pertain to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant, not services received. Therefore, the application was not admitted for consideration based on the legal provisions outlined in the GST Act.

5. The ruling concluded that the application was not admitted under Section 98(2) read with Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017/TNGST Act, 2017 due to the inadmissibility of the question regarding the determination of GST rates for services received by the applicant.