2025 (1) TMI 393 - AAAR - GST

Relevant time of supply - What is the time of supply for the purpose of discharge of GST in respect of mobilization advance received by it for construction services? - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of both the sections 2 (31) and 13, leads to a conclusion that the liability to pay tax on services shall arise at the time of supply, which will be the earliest of the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, if it is issued within the prescribed period or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier . The explanation to section 13 (2) through a deeming provision states that the supply shall be deemed to have been made to the extent it is covered by the invoice or, as the case may be, the payment that the date of receipt of payment shall be the date on which the payment is entered in the books of account of the supplier or the date on which the payment is credited to his bank account, whichever is earlier. The averment of the appellant that the mobilization advance is not in the nature of payment; that it is merely a transaction in money; that consideration excludes deposit, is not a legally tenable argument. Further, the findings of the GAAR concurred with, that the time of supply in respect of the mobilization advance/advance payment received by the appellant in respect of supply of service, is the date of receipt of such advance. The question of applicability of notification No. 66/2017-CT (Rate) dated 15.11.2017, does not arise, owing to the fact that it is already held that in terms of the agreement between the appellant and MORT H, the supply is in respect of services. The said notification is applicable only in respect of supply of goods. Conclusion - The time of supply for GST purposes is the date of receipt of the mobilization advance. The appeal filed by appellant M/s S.P. Singla Constructions P Ltd. is rejected.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question addressed in this judgment is: What is the time of supply for the purpose of discharge of GST in respect of mobilization advance received by the appellant, M/s S.P. Singla Constructions P Ltd., for construction services?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

- Relevant legal framework and precedents

The relevant legal framework includes the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act). The provisions of these acts are considered pari materia, meaning they are substantially similar except for a few specific provisions. The key sections under consideration are Section 2(31) and Section 13 of the CGST Act, which define "consideration" and determine the "time of supply" for services, respectively.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning

The court interpreted Section 2(31) to include mobilization advance as "consideration" for services, as it is a payment made in respect of the supply of services. Section 13(2) was interpreted to mean that the time of supply is the earliest of the date of issue of the invoice or the date of receipt of payment. The court emphasized that the proviso to Section 2(31) indicates that a deposit is not considered payment unless applied as consideration for supply.

- Key evidence and findings

The court examined the EPC contract between the appellant and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It found that the mobilization advance was to be repaid through deductions from stage payments, indicating it was part of the consideration for services. The court also noted that the advance was interest-bearing and secured by a bank guarantee, further supporting its characterization as consideration.

- Application of law to facts

The court applied the legal definitions and provisions to the facts of the case, concluding that the mobilization advance constituted consideration for services. Consequently, the time of supply was determined to be the date of receipt of the advance, as per Section 13(2) of the CGST Act.

- Treatment of competing arguments

The appellant argued that the mobilization advance was merely a transaction in money and not a taxable supply at the time of receipt. They contended it was a deposit, not consideration, and cited various case laws. The court rejected these arguments, stating that the advance was adjusted against the consideration for services, thus meeting the criteria for consideration under Section 2(31). The court also dismissed the relevance of the cited case laws, noting differences in legal context and factual circumstances.

- Conclusions

The court concluded that the mobilization advance is taxable at the time of receipt, as it is part of the consideration for services supplied under the EPC contract. The appellant's arguments were found to be legally untenable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning

"A conjoint reading of both the sections 2(31) and 13, leads to a conclusion that the liability to pay tax on services shall arise at the time of supply, which will be the earliest of the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, if it is issued within the prescribed period or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier."

- Core principles established

The judgment reinforces the principle that advances received for services, when adjusted as consideration, are taxable at the time of receipt. It clarifies that the presence of a bank guarantee does not alter the nature of the advance as consideration.

- Final determinations on each issue

The court upheld the ruling of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling, determining that the time of supply for GST purposes is the date of receipt of the mobilization advance. The appeal by M/s S.P. Singla Constructions P Ltd. was rejected, affirming that the advance is taxable at the time of receipt.

← Previous Next →