GST Ruling: Services Received vs. Supplies Made in Forestry Sector

The Divisional Forest Officer sought an advance ruling on the applicability of GST for activities related to timber and bamboo extraction, transportation to government depots, and maintenance works. The Authority for Advance Ruling determined that the applicant was not making supplies but receiving services from contractors. As the questions were about tax liability on services received, not supplies made, the application was rejected under Section 98 of the CGST and APGST Acts. The ruling clarifies the distinction between tax liability on services received and supplies made, providing insights into GST application in the forestry sector.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Applicability of GST on extraction of timber/bamboo, transportation to government depots, and maintenance works at government depots.

Analysis:
The Divisional Forest Officer, Logging Division, Chintur sought an advance ruling on the applicability of GST for various activities related to extraction of timber and bamboo, transportation to government depots, and maintenance works at the depots. The applicant collected GST from bidders and deposited it in the GST account. The activities involved open tender system, piece work contract method, and engagement of local tribal laborers. The questions raised by the applicant pertained to the percentage of GST applicable and the relevant HSN codes for each activity.

The Authority for Advance Ruling examined the case and determined that the applicant was not making any supplies but was the recipient of services provided by contractors. As the questions raised were related to the liability to pay tax on services received, not on supplies made by the applicant, the application was deemed inadmissible. The legal provisions under Section 95(a) of CGST and APGST Act define advance ruling as a decision on matters specified in the Act regarding the supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed by the applicant.

The ruling stated that the application for advance ruling by M/s. Divisional Forest Officer, Logging Division, Chintur was rejected under subsection 2 of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the APGST Act, 2017. Despite the detailed submission and personal hearing, the ruling concluded that the applicant's queries were not directly related to the supplies made by them but rather to the liability to pay tax on services received, leading to the rejection of the application for advance ruling.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between liability to pay tax on services received and supplies made, emphasizing the recipient's position in seeking an advance ruling. The ruling provides insights into the application of GST in the forestry sector, particularly concerning the extraction, transportation, and maintenance activities carried out by government departments.

---