Appeal delay condoned due to formation delay. Solar plant contracts treated as works contracts.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned as the Appellate Authority was not formed initially. The contracts for supply of goods and services for a solar power plant were treated as a single composite supply of works contract taxable at 18%. The appellant's claims for concessional rates for parts supplied by the contractor and sub-contractors were not determined due to insufficient supporting documents. The entire contract, including goods and services, was deemed a composite supply of works contract taxable at 18%. The agreements for setting up the solar power plant were considered works contracts and taxable at 18%.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Taxability of Separate Contracts for Supply of Goods and Services for a Solar Power Plant
3. Eligibility of Concessional Rate for Parts Supplied by the Contractor
4. Eligibility of Concessional Rate for Sub-Contractors
5. Taxability of Contract for Services

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the non-formation of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in Maharashtra. The delay was condoned as the appellant had taken steps within the stipulated period and filed the appeal within one month of the formation of the authority.

2. Taxability of Separate Contracts for Supply of Goods and Services for a Solar Power Plant:
The appellant contended that the supply of goods (SPGS) should be taxed at 5% and services at 18%. However, the authority held that the contracts, though separate, are inextricably linked and form a single indivisible contract for setting up a solar power generating system. The agreement included design, engineering, manufacturing, inspection, testing, erection, and commissioning, which are integrally connected. The authority concluded that the transaction is a composite supply of works contract, taxable at 18% as per the GST Act.

3. Eligibility of Concessional Rate for Parts Supplied by the Contractor:
The appellant did not provide sufficient documents or agreements to support this claim. The authority could not determine the eligibility for a concessional rate of 5% for parts supplied by the contractor in the absence of detailed agreements and terms.

4. Eligibility of Concessional Rate for Sub-Contractors:
Similarly, no documents or agreements were provided to determine if sub-contractors could avail the concessional rate of 5%. The authority did not give a decision due to the lack of specific details and agreements.

5. Taxability of Contract for Services:
The appellant argued that the contract for services should be taxed independently at 18%. The authority noted that the services contract included various activities such as construction, civil works, and commissioning, which are essential for setting up the solar power plant. The authority held that the entire contract, including both goods and services, forms a composite supply of works contract, taxable at 18%.

Additional Findings:
- The authority emphasized that the agreements, though separate, were essentially for setting up a solar power generating system and could not be artificially split into separate contracts for goods and services.
- The authority referred to several judgments to conclude that the solar power generating system is immovable property due to the nature of its installation and annexation to the earth.
- The authority affirmed that the agreements lead to the erection of a solar power generating system, which is immovable property, and hence, the entire contract is taxable as a works contract at 18%.

Order:
1. The agreements for setting up and operating a solar photovoltaic plant are in the nature of a works contract and taxable at 18%.
2. No determination was made regarding the eligibility of a concessional rate for parts supplied by the contractor due to the absence of specific agreements.
3. No determination was made regarding the eligibility of a concessional rate for sub-contractors due to the absence of specific agreements.

This detailed analysis preserves the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text while providing a comprehensive summary of the judgment.

---