9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1271 - AAR - GSTScope of Advance Ruling - Supply or not - work done by the applicant in Transmission Line under the supervision of MVVNL - levy of GST on MVVNL on the full amount of work done for load sanction of 11 KV lines by applicant - applicant pays GST on the entire value of work done to its contractors and also to MVVNL - payment of same amount of GST on the same transaction to two separate entities - double taxation - HELD THAT - Applicant M/s Spring Infrastructures is receiver of the Goods/Services provided by the M/s Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. Therefore, it falls under category of Service recipient. In light of point provided under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only supplier of the services can file Application for Advance Ruling. Accordingly, the application for consideration/ruling not admitted on merits as applicant does not fall under the definition of supplier under Advance Ruling and cannot get the Advance Ruling under the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the work done by the applicant in Transmission Line under the supervision of MVVNL comes under the definition of supply as per section 15(2)(b) of UP GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether GST is to be paid to MVVNL on the full amount of work done for load sanction of 11 KV lines by the applicant? 3. If the applicant pays GST on the entire value of work done to its contractors and also to MVVNL, will this not constitute double taxation? Summary: Issue 1: Definition of Supply u/s 15(2)(b) of UP GST Act, 2017 The applicant, M/s Spring Infrastructures, is primarily engaged in the Land Developer business and has sought an advance ruling on whether the work done in the Transmission Line under MVVNL supervision constitutes a supply. The applicant argues that the shifting/modification of the transmission line does not involve any consideration or transfer of ownership, thus not qualifying as a supply. The MVVNL supervises the work and charges supervision fees along with GST, but the ownership of the transmission lines remains with MVVNL before and after the modification. Issue 2: GST Payment to MVVNL The applicant contends that GST should only be paid on the supervision charges levied by MVVNL and not on the entire cost of the transmission line work. The applicant emphasizes that the materials and labor for the work are provided by the contractor, who claims ITC on these expenses. The MVVNL's demand for GST on the entire estimated cost is seen as unjustified since the work is not a supply from MVVNL to the applicant. Issue 3: Double Taxation The applicant raises concerns about double taxation if GST is paid both to the contractor and MVVNL for the same work. The applicant argues that this would result in paying GST twice for the same transaction, which is against the provisions of the GST law and natural justice. Discussion and Finding: The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) examined the application and found that the applicant, being a recipient of services from MVVNL, does not fall under the definition of a supplier as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017. The AAR clarified that only suppliers of goods or services can seek an advance ruling. Since the applicant is a service recipient, the application does not qualify for consideration. Ruling: No ruling can be given in the matter as the applicant does not fall under the definition of a supplier under the Advance Ruling provisions of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. Validity: This ruling is valid within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling Uttar Pradesh and subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 until declared void under Section 104(1) of the Act.
|
