Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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