Appellate Authority affirms works contract classification for site preparation; Appellant's arguments rejected.

The Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the WBAAR, classifying the supply as a works contract for site preparation. The Appellant's arguments regarding the nature of the job, classification as a composite supply, and the status of the principal contractor as a government entity were not accepted. The appeal was dismissed, and the original ruling was maintained.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of supply as works contract or supply of goods, nature of job being site preparation, classification of supply as composite supply, consideration of the principal contractor as a government entity.

Analysis:
1. Classification of supply as works contract: The Appellant contended that the supply should be classified as the supply of silver sand and earth, not as a works contract for site preparation. They argued that they are not engaged in site preparation services. However, the WBAAR concluded that the contract involved transfer of property in goods during site preparation for construction, falling under the definition of a works contract as per section 2(119) of the GST Act.

2. Nature of job being site preparation: The Appellant emphasized that the major portion of the contract value was for the supply of sand, constituting over 90% of the total work order. They argued that the service portion, such as compacting and leveling the sand, was ancillary to the principal supply of sand. The Appellant referenced a similar ruling by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Jharkhand, to support their argument. However, the Respondent maintained that the nature of the job involved activities essential for site preparation, making it a works contract under SAC 9954.

3. Classification of supply as composite supply: The Appellant claimed that the supply should be considered a composite supply under section 2(30) of the GST Act, with the principal supply being silver sand and earth. They argued that since the value of the sand constituted the majority of the contract, it should be taxed at the rate applicable to sand. However, the WBAAR found that the activities undertaken by the Appellant, including filling and consolidating the land, were aimed at preparing the site for construction, not constituting a composite supply as argued.

4. Consideration of the principal contractor as a government entity: The Appellant raised concerns regarding the classification of MBL as a State Government Company and argued that the Principal Contractee, WBPHIDCL, was a government authority. They contended that this should impact the classification of the supply. However, the WBAAR did not find this argument compelling and maintained its classification based on the nature of the activities performed by the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the WBAAR, finding no errors in the classification of the supply as a works contract for site preparation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original ruling was maintained. Both parties were informed of the decision.

---