2023-TIOL-24-AAR-GST
Sri Annapumeshwari Enterprises
GST - Providing catering services to Educational Institution from 1st standard to 2nd Pre-University College [PUC] is exempted as per entry No. 66 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax Rate as amended: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-05-AAAR-GST
Shilchar Technologies Ltd
GST - Applicant had sought a ruling on the question - Whether supply of Aluminium Foil Type Winding Inverter Duty Transformer classifiable under Chapter Heading 8504 and parts of Transformer supplied/to be supplied for initial setting up of solar project falls under Sr. no. 234 in Schedule-I to Notification No. 01/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 and liable to Central GST 2.5% along with State GST at the rate of 2.5% - AAR in its ruling has held that the applicant is liable for payment of GST on the total value of both the purchase orders i.e. supply of goods and supply of service in terms of explanation inserted vide Entry No. 234 of Noti . No. 01/2017 -CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 vide Notification No. 24/2018 -CT (Rate) dated 31.12.2018; that out of the gross value of the supply, 70% shall be deemed to be on account of goods and 30% deemed to be on account of service and accordingly, the effective rate came to 8.9% [on goods @5% and on services @18%] - Aggrieved the present appeal is filed - It is the contention of the appellant that GAAR has erred in holding that the recipient of supply and service is the same i.e. M/s Adani Green Energy Ltd whereas they had received two separate Purchase orders i.e. one for the supply of Aluminum Foil Type Winding Inverter Duty Transformers for initial setting up of Solar Power Generating System from M/s Adani Green Energy Limited and the other for Supervision services of Erection, Testing and Commissioning Charges (ETC) which was awarded to them by M/s Adani Solar Energy Chitrakoot One Limited and that two different contracts could not be clubbed together to form a composite contract for the purpose of calculating the duty liability on the appellant.
Held: From the wordings of the clauses of the Technical Specification issued, it is clear that the contract was for a single supply of goods and supply of services which has been artificially split - Appellate authority finds that the aforesaid artificial splitting of the contract into two separate orders being placed by two different entities is merely an afterthought so as to circumvent the explanation inserted in entry No 234 of Notification No 01/2017 CT according to which, of the value of gross consideration 70% shall be deemed to be on account of goods and 30% deemed to be on account of service - It can be concluded that the activities relating to supply of the transformers and the supervision of the erection, testing and commissioning of the transformers supplied by the appellant are inextricable and for the purpose of supply of transformer which would be used in initial setting up of the Solar Power Plant - The activities to be performed based on the two contracts discussed herein are interdependent and contribute to setting up of the Solar Power Generating System as per the Project Requirements - W.e.f 01.10.2021, the effective rate comes to 13.8%, Sr.no. 201A of notification 1/2017-CTR as amended by 8/2021 -CT (Rate) refers: AAAR [para 13, 16, 18]
- Appeal disposed of: AAAR
2023-TIOL-04-AAAR-GST
Precision Camshafts Ltd
GST - Applicant had sought a ruling on the following question - Whether the supply of "assistance in design and development of patterns used for manufacture or camshaft" to a customer is a composite supply of services, the principal supply being supply of services - AAR had held that the activity of design and development of patterns used for manufacturing of camshaft for a customer is a supply of service in the form of ‘intermediary service' - Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed - It is contended that activities undertaken by appellant constitutes a ‘composite supply' with supply of services being principal supply.
Held: The appellant first manufactures the tool as per the requirements and specification given by the customer - This tool is retained by the appellant and used for the manufacture and supply of camshafts - The appellant raises the tax invoice for this tool in the name of overseas customer in convertible foreign exchange though the tool is not physically exported to the customer - The ownership of the tools remains with the overseas customers - Thus, it is amply clear that impugned transaction between appellant and overseas customer is of supply of goods i.e. pattern/tool of specified specifications - On careful perusal of the definition of the term "composite supply" and the essential conditions enumerated in the definition, it is seen that the composite supply comprising two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof should be made by a taxable person to a recipient - However, in the instant case, considering the facts of the case, it is amply clear that impugned transaction between appellant and overseas customer is of supply of goods i.e. pattern/tool of specified specifications - Hence, contentions of the appellant that impugned transaction is composite supply where the principal supply is supply of services is not valid - In view of the above discussion, Appellate Authority holds that the impugned transaction is supply of goods i.e. pattern/tool of specified specifications - Appeal disposed of: AAAR [para 14, 16]
- Appeal disposed of: AAAR |
