Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2016-2017/3462

What would be the applicable GST rate and classification on the works contract service of maintenance of railway tracks?
Case: SREEPATI RANJAN GOPE & SONS
Citation: 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 392 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue:What would be the applicable GST rate and classification on the works contract service of maintenance of railway tracks?
Brief facts: - The Applicant, stated to be an enlisted contractor engaged by the Railways for maintenance work of railway tracks, wants a ruling on the Classification and Rate of Tax when maintenance of railways tracks is done by them by providing contractor’s labour only in cases where the Railways supply materials free of cost and when maintenance of railways tracks is done by them by providing, both, contractor’s material and labour.
AdvanceRuling is admissible on this question under Section 97(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the GST Act”).
Appellant’s contention: . During the course of Personal Hearing, on 21-3-2018, the Applicant submitted a photocopy of Letter of Acceptance, for the period 1-10-2017 to 30-9-2018, (hereinafter referred to as “LOA”) No. : T/Misc.P.Way (Zonal)/PWI-West/SRC/2017(e-30), dated 4-1-2018 issued from the Office of the DRM (Engg.), Kharagpur, along with the Schedules annexed thereto.
 
Judgement: The Adjudicating Authority contended that the Application, in Annexure C refers to a hyperlink: www.export-genius.in/gst-tax-rates/railway-track-maintenance-work which leads to information on the GST on HSN Code 8604 00 00 - Railway or Tramway Maintenance or Service Vehicles Whether or Not Self-propelled (for Example Workshops Cranes, Ballast Tampers, Track-liners, Testing Coaches and Track Inspection Vehicles. Since the Applicant is neither manufacturing nor supplying any such vehicle, the information available on the hyperlink is not relevant to the Applicant.
The Applicant is a supplier of services as per work order issued for execution by the Railways. From examination of the LOA and the annexed Schedules it is clear that the work to be executed involves repair, maintenance and fitting out of immovable property, namely, Railway Tracks, and also transfer of property in goods in course thereof. It is, therefore, a “Composite Supply” of labour and goods in the nature of Works Contract, as defined under Section 2(119) of the GST Act, and is, therefore, classifiable under (ii) of column 3 [Description of Service] of Heading 9954 (Construction Services) of Column 2 under Serial No. 3 of Column 1 of the Table in Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the CGST Act, 2017 (1135-F.T., dated 28-6-2017 under the WBGST Act, 2017) - hereinafter collectively called Rate Notification. The Annexure: Scheme of Classification of Services appended with the said Notification No. further classifies Heading 9954 under Section 5 “Construction Services”. Group 9954 21 under Heading 9954 classifies “General Construction of civil engineering works” and Sub-group 9954 21 classifies “General Construction services of highways, streets, roads, railways and airfield runways, bridges and tunnels”. Sub-Group 9954 29 classifies “Services involving repair, alterations, additions, replacements, renovations, maintenance or remodelling of the constructions covered above”.
After a thorough perusal of the LOA it is seen that the Services rendered by the Applicant are to be classified under SAC (Service Code Tariff) Heading 9954, Group 9954 21, Sub-group 9954 29.
 The Rate Notification, along with its amendments on various dates, deals with the Tariff rate of tax as well as the effective rate of tax at reduced rates subject to specific laid down conditions. None of the amendments, whereby the effective rate of tax is at a rate lower than the Tariff rate under specifically laid down conditions are applicable in this case.
During Personal Hearing the Applicant has submitted a screenshot of GST rate of 5% for construction services for composite supply of works contracts involving predominantly earth work (that is, constituting more than 75% of the value of services provided, inter alia, to Central Government.
It appears that the Applicant is referring to amendment dated 13-10-2017 of the above mentioned Rate Notification. The LOA provides a detailed schedule of the nature of the work involved. It involves cleaning, surface preparation and painting of the rails, welding of joints, fabrication and fixing of guard rails, dressing and boxing of ballast, piling of Bullah, and other maintenance related work, only a minor fraction of which can be described as earth work. Hence, this amendment for effective rate of GST at reduced rates is not applicable in the instant case.
 During Personal Hearing the Applicant has referred to an exemption granted under Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the CGST Act, 2017 (1136-F.T., dated 28-6-2017 under the WBGST Act, 2017) (hereinafter referred to as “the Exemption Notification”), and as amended on 25-1-2018. This argument is not present in the original application of Advance Ruling submitted on 7-2-2018. However, it is seen that the condition for being exempted from GST under this amendment requires the composite supply (wherein the value of the goods supplied is not more than 25% of the total value of the supply) to be provided, inter alia, to Central Government by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution. Once again, the conditions laid down are not applicable to the instant case.
The works contract service of maintaining railway track as per the above LOA is, therefore, taxable @ 18% under the Serial No. 3(ii) of the Rate Notification.
Decision:The Applicant supplies works contract service, as defined under Section 2(119) of the GST Act, of maintaining existing railway tracks, which is taxable @ 18% under Serial No. 3(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the CGST Act, 2017 (1135-F.T., dated 28-6-2017 under the WBGST Act, 2017). The appropriate SAC (Service Code Tariff) is as follows: Heading 9954, Group 9954 21, Sub-group 9954 29.
2. This ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.
Comment: The gist of the case is Applicant supplies works contract service, of maintaining existing railway tracks, which is taxable @ 18% and the Notification dated 31.10.2017 attracting 5% shall not be applicable as it is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. The appropriate SAC (Service Code Tariff) is as follows: Heading 9954, Group 9954 21, Sub-group 9954 29.

Prepared by:Himanshu Bhimani
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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