Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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