Appellate Authority Rules LIH Equipment Reimbursement Subject to GST

The Appellate Authority upheld the ruling that the reimbursement for Lost in Hole (LIH) equipment is considered a separate supply liable to GST under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. They determined that the drilling services and LIH reimbursement are not naturally bundled as composite supplies, and therefore, the rate of GST for the LIH equipment is based on its classification. The decision affirmed the Authority for Advance Ruling's position in Andhra Pradesh.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of supply of the reimbursement of LIH (Lost in Hole) damaged beyond repair goods/equipment.
2. Whether the supply of drilling services and reimbursement of LIH are composite supplies.
3. Rate of GST applicable to the supply of drilling services and reimbursement of LIH.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Supply of Reimbursement of LIH Equipment:
The appellant argued that the reimbursement for LIH equipment is not a "supply of goods." They contended that LIH reimbursement is an integral part of the bundled services related to drilling/mining activities and not a separate supply. The appellant emphasized that there is no transfer of title in the LIH equipment since the reimbursement is contingent upon irretrievable loss or damage of goods/equipment used in providing drilling services. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that the reimbursement received towards LIH equipment is considered a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, and is liable to GST. The Appellate Authority upheld this view, stating that the reimbursement of LIH tools/equipment is essentially the consideration received for the procurement of damaged goods in the course of its business of drilling operations.

2. Composite Supply:
The appellant argued that the reimbursement of LIH equipment should be treated as a composite supply, naturally bundled with the principal supply of drilling/mining services. They cited various criteria to determine if supplies are naturally bundled, including customer expectations, industry practice, and whether the supplies are incidental or inter-dependent. They also referenced the Service Tax Education Guide and various legal precedents to support their argument. The Appellate Authority, however, found that the drilling services and LIH reimbursement are not naturally bundled. The contract does not provide a single price for both supplies, and the two supplies are not advertised as a package. The LIH event is a contingent occurrence and not a regular part of the business. The Appellate Authority concluded that the supplies are not made in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business and thus do not qualify as composite supplies.

3. Rate of GST:
The appellant argued that if the supplies are considered composite, the rate of GST applicable to the principal supply (drilling services) should apply to the entire contract, including the reimbursement of LIH equipment. They contended that the predominant element of the supply is the drilling/mining services, and the reimbursement of LIH equipment is ancillary to this principal supply. The applicable GST rate for drilling services is 12% post-amendment. However, the Appellate Authority upheld the AAR's ruling that the reimbursement of LIH equipment is a separate supply of goods. Therefore, the rate of GST applicable to the supply of drilling services does not apply to the reimbursement of LIH equipment. The classification and rate of GST for LIH reimbursement depend on the nature of the actual goods involved and their HSN classification.

Order:
The Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh, vide Ruling No. 16/AP/GST/2020 dated 13.05.2020.

---