9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties of like nature in the subject case. Since construction activities are being undertaken by the respective contractor, in both the questions nature of transactions is such that the applicant is the recipient and not the supplier. Sub-section (1) of section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017 categorically speaks that the ruling pronounced is binding only on the applicant and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. If an application is filed by the recipient of goods or services or both on the taxability of his inward supply of goods or services and ruling is pronounced accordingly, such ruling shall be binding only on him and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of him. In no way, the ruling shall be binding on the supplier of such goods or services. Since provisions of Sec 95 (a) are very clear and unambiguous that only a supplier can file an application for advance ruling, the contentions of the applicant are not accepted. The said provisions were discussed with the applicant's authorized representative during the course of the final hearing and he agreed that the questions are not maintainable and not capable of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 212.40 4459.71 65% 1 BHK 62 115.03 2377.75 35% Total 146 327.43 6837.46 100% From the aforesaid, it can be observed that in this project more than 50% of Floor Space Index (FSI) is utilized towards construction of units (below 60 sq. mts.) and thus, the Project would qualify as an 'Affordable Housing Project' (AHP) which has been given 'Infrastructure Status' under the Notification F. No. 13/6/2009-INF, dated 30-3-2017 issued by Department of Economic Affairs. 2.3 The relevant entry, as contained in the Not. No. 11/2017-CT is reproduced for ease of reference: SI.No. Chapter, Section or Heading Description of Service Rate (per cent.) Condition (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 3. Heading 9954 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax would be available in respect of 'work contract services' pertaining to low-cost houses, irrespective of it being supplied by the Developer or the Contractor. Also, the impugned question is with respect to applicability of rate on the specified supply of works contract services in respect of affordable housing project and thus, the question is qua the supply than qua the person. 03. CONTENTION - AS PER THE CONCERNED OFFICER: Officer Submission dated 03.02.2022- 3.1 The Applicant, M/s. Rome!! Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., a developer receives 'works contract services' from contractors. The subject works contract entered into by the contractors with the Applicant is related to the residential project 'Amore'. The Applicant has submitted that in this project more than 50% of Floor Space Index (FSI) is utilized towards construction of units (below 60 Sq.Mtrs.) and the project would qualify as an 'Affordable Housing Project (AHP) which has been given Infrastructure Status' under the Notification F.No. 13/6/2009-INF dated 30.03.2017 issued by Comments with reference to Question No. 1 raised by the Applicant: 3.2 (i) Notification No. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Co. Ltd. (Order No. GST-ARA-29/2019-20/B-123 dated 26.12.2019). 3.5 The Authority may decide as to whether the project with club house, swimming pool and other amenities still qualifies to be 'low cost houses in an affordable housing project' in terms of the said notification. 04. HEARING 4.1 Preliminary e-hearing in the matter was held on 12.10.2021. Authorized representative of the Applicant, Shri. Pritam Mahure, C.A. was present. Jurisdictional Officer was absent. Application is admitted subject to condition that applicant will file/produce the written submission as to how the recipient of supply can seek advance ruling. 4.2 The application was admitted and called for final e-hearing on 22.02.2022. Authorized representative of the applicant, Shri. Pritam Mahure, C.A., was present. Jurisdictional officer Shri. Vinod Pisharody, Superintendent, Division-VI, Commissionerate Mumbai West was also present. Applicant admitted that questions asked in application are not capable of being covered under scope of Section 95(a) of GST Act. 05. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS: 5.1 We have perused and considered the submissions made by the applicant i.e. M/s Rome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, such ruling shall be binding only on him and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of him. In no way, the ruling shall be binding on the supplier of such goods or services. To illustrate, say M/s X of Maharashtra receives inward supply of goods from M/s Y (Location of M/s. Y May be in Maharashtra or may be in other states). M/s. X files an application of advance ruling seeking the taxability of his inward supply. The Advance Ruling Authority may pronounce ruling declaring the supply to be an exempt supply. However, since the same is not binding on his supplier, the supplier may not follow the ruling and even find the supply as a taxable supply. In such a scenario, the ruling loses its relevance and applicability. Any provisions of the Law, therefore, should not be interpreted in a way which defeats the very purpose of the objective and purpose of the law provision. We are therefore of the view that in the subject application, the applicant cannot seek an advance ruling in relation to the supply where he is a recipient of services. 5.5 The applicant mainly emphasized the following two issues, viz. (1) The word 'in relation to the supply of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
