Appellate authority affirms tax rate for services under IPDS Scheme as 9% CGST and CGGST.

The appellate authority upheld the AAR's decision that the applicable tax rate for services provided by the appellant to CSPDCL under the IPDS Scheme is 9% CGST and 9% CGGST. The authority found that the services were commercial in nature based on the infrastructure's ultimate use for electricity distribution, which involves charging tariffs, falling within the scope of "commerce" or "business." The appellant's argument that the services qualified for a concessional rate under Notification No. 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) due to the scheme's non-commercial objective was rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the applicable tax rate for services provided by the appellant to CSPDCL under the IPDS Scheme.
2. Interpretation of the term "commercial in nature" in the context of the services provided.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for concessional tax rates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the applicable tax rate for services provided by the appellant to CSPDCL under the IPDS Scheme:
The appellant, M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., engaged in providing maintenance and engineering services, was awarded a contract by CSPDCL for the implementation of the Integrated Power Development Scheme (IPDS). The appellant sought clarification on the applicable tax rate, contending that their services should attract a concessional rate of 6% CGST and 6% CGGST as per Notification No. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017, as amended by Notification No. 24/2017 dated 21.09.2017. However, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that the applicable tax rate should be 9% CGST and 9% CGGST. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 100(1) of the CGST Act 2017.

2. Interpretation of the term "commercial in nature" in the context of the services provided:
The appellant argued that the activities undertaken by CSPDCL under the IPDS Scheme were non-commercial in nature, intended for the public good rather than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession. The AAR, however, held that CSPDCL's Memorandum of Association (MOA) indicated commercial objectives, and thus, the services provided were commercial in nature. The appellant contended that the AAR failed to consider the primary objective of the IPDS Scheme, which was to improve the power distribution infrastructure in urban and semi-urban areas, benefiting the community as a whole without any profit motive.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for concessional tax rates:
The central issue was whether the services provided by the appellant to CSPDCL fell within the scope of Notification No. 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which allows for a concessional tax rate for services provided to governmental authorities for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession. The notification stipulates that services must be predominantly for non-commercial use to qualify for the reduced tax rate. The appellant argued that the IPDS Scheme's objective was non-commercial and aimed at public welfare, thus qualifying for the concessional rate.

Discussions and Findings:
The appellate authority examined the appellant's arguments and the AAR's ruling. It emphasized the need for a strict interpretation of notifications related to concessional tax rates. The authority noted that the infrastructure provided under the IPDS Scheme would ultimately be used for the distribution of electricity, for which CSPDCL charges tariffs. This activity falls within the ambit of "commerce" or "business," and thus, the services cannot be considered non-commercial. The authority found no error in the AAR's decision that the services provided by the appellant were commercial in nature.

Order:
The appellate authority upheld the AAR's order, affirming that the applicable tax rate for the services provided by the appellant to CSPDCL under the IPDS Scheme is 9% CGST and 9% CGGST.

---