Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update on different rulings on exemption to sub-contractors 48/2020-21

GST update on different rulings on exemption to sub-contractors 48/2020-21

The present update seeks to discuss about the different rulings pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings as regards availability of exemption to sub-contractors when the services provided by the main contractor are exempt. There have been divergent rulings depending on the language of the exemption entry applicable for the main contractor as in case of exemption notifications, the principle of strict interpretation is applicable.

Firstly, we shall discuss the ruling pronounced by the Rajasthan AAR in the case of M/s The Sunrise Construction Company wherein the party entered into an agreement with the Government of Rajasthan for construction of 270 flats as per affordable housing scheme under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). It sublets the construction work to another person under a separate work contract. The said person entered in a sub-contract with the applicant for ‘Pure labour Service’ in the said project. The applicant has sought advance ruling on whether GST is exempt on such pure labour sub-contracts under PMAY? The Authority for Advance Ruling observed that as per exemption notification, services provided by way of pure labour contracts of construction, erection, commissioning installation, completion, fitting out or any other original works pertaining to the beneficiary-led individual house construction or enhancement under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana are exempted from GST. The scope of the notification is not person-centric but project-centric. The said notification does not refer to contractor or subcontractor but to the supply of pure labour services by way of construction under certain project. It clearly sets out that whosoever is supplying the pure labour contract services for the construction of a civil structure or any other original works under PMAY is exempted from GST. The Authority for Advance Ruling held that the services supplied by applicant by way of pure labour contract for the construction of flats under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana are exempted from GST.

Coming to the ruling pronounced by the Karnataka AAR in the case of M/s Nurserymen Cooperative Society Ltd wherein the applicant has received contract from Government departments like BBMP and KSRTC for undertaking gardening and landscaping activities. In order to execute the work, the applicant has engaged sub-contractors. The sub-contractors bill the applicant for the gardening and landscaping work done at the government departments. The applicant in turn bills the Government department in terms of the contract given to them. The issue to be determined is whether the supply of services by the sub-contractor to the applicant for executing the gardening and landscaping work for government departments is exempt from GST.

 

In the instant case, the issue being examined is whether the services supplied by the subcontractors to the applicant, who is the recipient of the services, is exempted from GST. The entries under Sl. No 3 and 3A above will apply only if the recipient of services is a Government (central/State/UT) or local authority or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity. In this case, the applicant who is the recipient of the supply from the sub-contractor is a Cooperative Society and not an entity specified in Sl. No 3 and 3A. When this criterion of the Notification is not satisfied, the sub-contractors as suppliers of service, will not be eligible for the exemption under the entries 3 or 3A of the above said Notification. It is a well settled law that exemption notifications are to be interpreted strictly as to their eligibility. One cannot be influenced by extraneous factors while determining a person’s eligibility to an exemption notification. Therefore, on a strict interpretation of the entry Sl.No3 and 3A, the authority held that the supply of services by the subcontractors to the applicant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption under either SI..No 3 or 3 A of Notification No 12/2017 CT(R) dated 28-06-2017.

 

We have also discussed in our earlier update on the case law pronounced by the Karnataka AAR in the case of M/s MV Infra Service Pvt Ltd. (PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3556) where the applicant was engaged in provision of composite works contract services of erection, foundation, electrical works & painting of communication towers and their maintenance. They are expected to get sub contract work, of imparting training of soft skill development to Engineers, ITI students, Building and other construction workers, from the main contractor exclusively engaged in skill development training & are likely to get the main contract work. The applicant raised the question before the authority as to the applicability of the entry No.69 or 72 of the exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on the sub contractor. Certain conditions for the entitlement of the said exemption which were discussed under the case are as under:-

a) The services must be related to/ under any training programme.

b) The services must be provided to the Central Government, State Government and Union Territory Administration.

c) The total expenditure for the said training programme must be borne by Central Government, State Government and Union Territory Administration.

 

In the present case on hand though the services to be provided by the applicant would be under training programme for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) to construction workers, the services would be provided to the Main Contractor i.e. the recipient of the services would be the Main contractor, but not the State Government. Therefore, the rate of 18% GST is applicable on services to be provided under sub-contract to main contractor, who in turn provides to M/s Maharashtra State Skill Development Society, in respect of training of Building and other construction workers (skill development training) and the SI. No. 69 or SI. No. 72 of the notification 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) New Delhi, dated 28th June, 2017 are not applicable to the applicant.

 

The point to ponder here upon is that if the exemption is not available to the subcontractors, then the GST paid by the main contractor on the inward supply from the subcontractors will become a cost to them since they will not be eligible to avail the input tax credit of the tax paid on the inward supply, for the reason that the output supply made by them to the Government Department is exempted. However, in our opinion, the government should re-consider the admissibility of exemption to sub-contractors as the non-availability of ITC is the cost passed on to the recipient thereby defeating the purpose of exemption granted to the main contractor.

 

This is solely for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 .

 

 

 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com