Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the transportation services rendered under the services contract were exempt from GST under Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), and whether the arrangement was in substance a composite works contract supply rather than a separate exempt transportation service.
Analysis: The application arose from a contract structure containing a supply contract and a services contract, both linked by a cross fall breach clause. The transportation component was not an isolated supply: the facts showed that the transportation activity formed part of the larger execution of the cable package project along with other services such as insurance, installation, testing and commissioning. The Authority accepted the departmental view that the two contracts were interdependent and could not be treated as separate and independent supplies. It held that the arrangement was a composite supply in the nature of a works contract, and that the attempt to split out transportation charges for exemption was not legally sustainable. On that basis, the exemption under Serial No. 18, which applies to transportation of goods by a supplier other than a goods transport agency or courier agency, was held inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: The transportation services were not exempt under Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate); the answer was against the applicant.