9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sthan is right on not pronouncing the Ruling on Merits. Further, the Appellant has contended that they are engaged in such work/supply regularly and wanted to know the taxability of the transaction for future references. In this context, it is found that the impugned Ruling has been sought only for the specific Work Order No TN-483 for Operation and Maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations awarded by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to the appellant. Supplies under the work order have been undertaken during the period from 01.11.2019 to 30.04.2021. It is not in dispute that the supply has already been completed. Thus, the question of entertaining any application subsequent to the period for which supply has already been completed, does not arise. The Ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling. Rajasthan vide Order dated 01.06.2021 is right and needs no interference at this forum and the same is upheld. - SH. MAHENDRA RANGA, AND DR. RAVI KUMAR SURPUR, MEMBER Present for the Appellant : Shri Anurag Basu, CA (Proceedings under Section 101 of the Central GST Act, 2017 read with Section 101 of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017) At the outset, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking a ruling under Section 97(2) (b) and 97(2) (e) of CGST Act, 2017 on the following questions:- (a) Whether the service recipient i.e., M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is a Government Entity as defined under clause (zfa) of para 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 32/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017. (b) Whether services provided by the Appellant in respect of work order No. TN-483 for Operation and Maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited are wholly exempt vide serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 [as amended]? 3.4 As regards question (a) above, the Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the words or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity has been omitted at serial number 3, in column (3), in the heading Description of Services in the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 28th June, 2017 vide aforesaid Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.11.2021 which resulted as withdrawn of exemption from tax from 01.01.2022. Thus, as on date, no exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97 or sub-section (1) of Section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. 4.4 That the Appellant submitted that there is no such restriction that application for Advance Ruling cannot be filed once the provision of services is complete. 4.5 That the Appellant places reliance on the Flyer issued by CBEC on Advance Ruling Mechanism in GST. A perusal of the same would reveal that under para second of page I of the Flyer mentioning What is Advance Ruling it is categorically mentioned that The definition of Advance ruling given under the Act is a broad one and an improvement over the existing systems of Advance Rulings under Customs and Central Excise Laws. Under the present dispensation, Advance Rulings can be given only on a proposed transaction, whereas under GST, Advance Ruling can be obtained on a proposed transaction as well as a transaction already undertaken by the Appellant. 4.6 That in light of above, they submitted that the application made for Advance Ruling on 16.11.2021 for the work undertaken for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. 4.11 That the Appellant submitted that work undertaken by them falls under clause (XIV) Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity of the functions entrusted to a Panchayat under the Eleventh Schedule to Article 243G of the Constitution. 4.12 That the Appellant submitted that Government Entity has been defined under Notification Number 12/2017 as amended by 32/2017 under clause (zfa) of paragraph 2. That the Appellant submitted that according to the definition of government entity as stated above, an organization can qualify as government entity if it is set up by an Act of Parliament or a Stale Legislature or established by any Government, with ninety percent or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry' out a function entrusted by the Central Government. Stale Government. Union Territory or a local Authority. 4.13 That the Appellant submitted that Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is a government of Rajasthan Undertaking. Government of Rajasthan has floated Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited for the distribution and supply of electricity in 12 districts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticipation by way of equity or control and are engaged in carrying out a function entrusted by them through Article 243G of the constitution of India. 4.17 That the Appellant submitted that all the conditions contained in the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 have been complied with for the chargeability of CGST at the NIL rate. 4.18 That the Appellant submitted that the Authority has erred in stating that no exemption is available to the Appellant as vide Notification No. 16/2021 of Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.11.2021 the words Governmental Authority and Government Entity has been omitted at serial no. 03 of Notification no. 12/2017 of Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 resulting in withdrawn of exemption applicable to pure services. 4.19 That the Appellant submitted that the word Government Entity has been omitted from column (3) of serial no. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017 with effect from 01.01.2022. That the exemption in relation to pure services provided to government entity has been withdrawn from prospective effect from 01st January 2022 and not retrospectively from some earlier date. The Appellant submitted that the application was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Entity as defined under clause (zfa) of para 2 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 32/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10 2017. 2. Whether services provided by the Applicant [i.e. SAI ENT.] in respect of work order No. TN-483 for Operation and Maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited are wholly exempt vide serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 [as amended]? We further, note that the question No. 1 is interlinked with Question No. 2. The ruling on question number 1 has been sought in order to ascertain as to whether JVVNL is Government Entity or not as the benefit of S. No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017- CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time) is available to the appellant only if their service recipient is a Government Entity . Ruling on question No. 2 has been sought whether their supplies are wholly exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central fax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as (amended) or not. The Advance Ruling has been sought in respect of work order No. TN-483 for Operation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017. 6.4 In the instant ease, we find that the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan held that the supply is not covered under Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017. On the other hand, the Appellant has contested relied upon the Flyer issued by the Directorate General of Taxpayer services, CBEC on the topic 'GST Advance Ruling mechanism in GST. We observe that the referred Flyer has no statutory status. It reflects the prima facie understanding of the authors about the provisions of law. There is a possibility of the authors of such documents missing liner points. therefore, such documents, though good guides, cannot be treated as final words about the provisions of law. Levy Collection of GST or any tax is always governed by statutory provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur V/s M/s Ratan Melting Wire Industries reported at 2008 (231) ELT 22 (SC) held that a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law. Likewise a Flyer has no binding value so far as it is contrary to the specific provisions of law. 6.5 We note that the provisions of Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
