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/2018-2019/3496

Whether the works contract service of construction of residential quarters provided to MPPGCL would be taxable at concessional rate of 12% or 18%?
Case:M/s. Shreeji Infrastructure India P. Ltd. (GST AAR Madhya Prdesh)
Citation:Advance Ruling Order No. 15/2018 dated 18.10.2018
Issue:  Whether the works contract service of construction of residential quarters provided to MPPGCL would be taxable at concessional rate of 12% or 18%?
Brief facts:M/s. Shreeji Infrastructure Private Limited (herein after referred to as the ‘applicant company’), is engaged in carrying out the works contract in relation to construction of road, bridges, buildings, civil structures of government, semi government and private undertakings, secured through tenders in the case of government undertakings, and through personal negotiations in case of private undertakings. The applicant company raised Running Bills (RA bills) for the portion of work completed at a point of time to MPPGCL by charging CGST and SGST at the rate of 9% each, in view of Notification no. 11/2017Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 Chapter 99 Section 5 Heading 9954- entry 3(ii).
 
Whereas the service recipient MPPGCL is of the opinion that the applicable rate of GST should be 12% as per Notification no. 11/2017Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 Chapter 99 Section 5 Heading 9954- entry 3(vi)(c), by treating itself as a government entity and the work allocated to the service provider is the work which is the work supplied to it by the government.
 
Appellant’s contention: The applicant  is of the view that, work entrusted to the government entity means the work of sovereign nature. For eg. If construction of road is directly allotted to the applicant company by the government, then the applicable rate of GST would be 12%. And in the same line, if the work is allotted through medium of government entity, then also the rate shall be 12%.However in the impugned case, MPPGCL, has allotted the work contract of construction of 599 residential quarters to the applicant company, and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that this work has been entrusted to MPPGCL by the MP government which thereafter allotted the same to the applicant company.
 
Respondent’s Contention:   MPPGCL claimed that, it has been established by the Madhya Pradesh government, and 100% shareholding and control is being carried out by the MP state government. Further, this company has been exclusively formed to carry out the work of power generation. Therefore, it is an entity unequivocally covered under the purview of “Government Entity”.
MPPGCL further claimed that, the construction of 599 residential quarters for its staff is also covered under the condition prescribed under entry 3(vi)(c) of the notification (supra). The condition prescribes that, the concessional rate of 12 (6+6)% is applicable on fulfilment of the following: “where the services are supplied to a government entity, they should have been procured by the said entity in relation to a work entrusted to it by the CG, SG or the Union Territory or local authority, as the case may be.”.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:  As per Notification No. 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – October 13, 2017 issued under CGST Act, 2017 and corresponding notification under MPGST Act, 2017:
 Government Entity is defined as “Government Entity means an authority or a board or any other body including a society, trust, corporation, i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or ii) established by any Government, with 90per cent, or more participation by way of eguity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.” MPPGCL has been established by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Government of Madhya Pradesh has a 100% shareholding in the company. The State Government is also exercising full control over the activities of the said company. Therefore, M/s. Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Limited is a Government Entity as defined under Notification No.31/2017-Central tax (Rate) for the purpose of GST law. 
However, the civil construction of residential quarters is neither the primary work entrusted to MPPGCL nor it has any bearing on the work i.e. power generation by any means. Any work having direct involvement in the entrusted work i.e. power generation would merit exemption envisaged under Sr.No.3(vi)(c) of the Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) under CGST Act and corresponding notification under MPGST Act 2017.
Decision:  The authority decided that The activity in question definitely does not have any relation to the principal work of power generation entrusted by the state government to MPPGCL, and therefore the works contract service of construction of 599 residential quarters allotted to the applicant by MPPGCL will merit classification under SAC 9954 and would attract GST @ 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST).
Comment: The decision of the advance ruling is in alignment of conditions to avail exemption mentioned in the Notification no. 11/2017 Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017issued by the government. The intention of the legislature behind the concessional rate to such work is entrusted to a government entity for public interest in general. Any work having direct involvement in the entrusted work would merit exemption envisaged under Sr.No.3(vi)(c) of the Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) under CGST Act but extrapolating and extending this concessional rate to any or all activities of government entity will not only be unwarranted but also defeat the very purpose of concessional rate.
 
Prepared by:  Prateeksha Jain
 
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