AAAR ruling: Services to OKCL not exempt under Entry 72. Supply not to Govt, title transfer = supply of goods.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) upheld the ruling that services provided by the Appellant to Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited (OKCL) did not qualify for exemption under Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate). The appeal was rejected as the services were not provided to the Government, the total expenditure was not borne by the Government, and the supply included goods and services that were not naturally bundled. Additionally, the transfer of title in goods constituted a supply of goods. The AAAR also condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) to the services provided under the ICT @ School Project.
2. Determination of whether the services provided are under a training program.
3. Clarification on whether the services are provided to the Government.
4. Assessment of whether the total expenditure is borne by the Government.
5. Consideration of the composite supply and supply of goods during the contract period.
6. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate):
The Appellant sought an advance ruling on whether the services provided under the ICT @ School Project qualify for GST exemption under Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate). This entry exempts services provided to the Central Government, State Government, or Union territory administration under any training program where the total expenditure is borne by the government.

2. Determination of Whether the Services Provided Are Under a Training Program:
The Appellant argued that their activities, including installation, commissioning, site maintenance, and operation, were naturally bundled with the principal supply being computer training. They emphasized that the infrastructure was developed to provide computer training to students and teachers, and the ICT project aimed to promote computer literacy. The Appellant contended that during the contract period, the infrastructure was owned by them, and maintenance activities were performed to ensure smooth training delivery.

3. Clarification on Whether the Services Are Provided to the Government:
The Appellant provided services to Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited (OKCL), a body corporate. The AAR held that OKCL, being a corporate entity, does not qualify as the Government. The Appellant's argument that OKCL acted as an implementing agency on behalf of the Government was rejected. The AAR concluded that services provided to OKCL do not meet the primary requirement of being services provided to the Government.

4. Assessment of Whether the Total Expenditure Is Borne by the Government:
The Appellant contended that the expenditure for implementing the ICT project was borne by the Central and State Governments in a 75:25 ratio. However, the AAR noted that the payment responsibility was vested in OKCL, and thus, the condition that the total expenditure must be borne by the Government was not satisfied.

5. Consideration of the Composite Supply and Supply of Goods During the Contract Period:
The AAR observed that the supply undertaken by the Appellant was a composite supply, including goods and services that were not naturally bundled. The Appellant's claim that there was no supply of goods during the contract period was contradicted by their admission that the ownership of infrastructure would be transferred at the end of the contract period. The AAR held that the transfer of title in goods at a future date constitutes a supply of goods.

6. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Appellant requested condonation of a 5-day delay in filing the appeal, citing technical factors and transit delays. The AAAR found the reasons satisfactory and allowed the condonation of delay.

Conclusion:
The AAAR upheld the AAR's ruling that the services provided by the Appellant to OKCL do not qualify for exemption under Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate). The appeal was rejected on the grounds that the services were not provided to the Government, and the total expenditure was not borne by the Government. The AAAR also noted that the supply included goods and services that were not naturally bundled, and the transfer of title in goods constitutes a supply of goods. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

---