Appeal dismissed for ROM rejection order, not maintainable. Statutory time limit expired. Appeal only against advance ruling.

The appeal filed by M/s Durga Projects & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd against the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) order dated 11th Sept 2020 was dismissed as it was deemed not maintainable. The rejection of the ROM application did not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal against the original advance ruling, and the statutory time limit for such an appeal had expired. The Appellate Authority held that an appeal can only be made against an advance ruling pronounced under Section 98(4), and since the appeal was against the ROM rejection order, it was not admissible under Section 100 of the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of GST on work executed under Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for landowner’s portion.
2. Valuation of tax for work executed under JDA.
3. Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application and its rejection.
4. Admissibility of appeal against ROM rejection order.
5. Time limitation for filing an appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of GST on Work Executed Under JDA for Landowner’s Portion:
The Appellant, engaged in property development, sought a ruling on whether GST is applicable to work executed under JDA for the landowner’s portion, where work commenced pre-GST and continued post-GST. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that GST is applicable on the value determined as per Notification No 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 at the time of transfer of possession of the landowner’s portion of the flats.

2. Valuation of Tax for Work Executed Under JDA:
The Appellant argued that the valuation method prescribed in Para 2 of Notification No 11/2017 CT (R) should not apply as there is no transfer of undivided interest in land from the developer to the landowner. The Appellant contended that the work executed by the developer for the landowner’s built-up area against receipt of undivided interest in land amounts to barter/exchange and does not attract tax under the Karnataka VAT law. They also referenced Service Tax law, arguing that the point of taxation arises on the date of entering into the JDA.

3. Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Application and Its Rejection:
The Appellant filed a ROM application to rectify the ruling, claiming inconsistency with a similar ruling in the case of M/s Nforce Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd. The Authority rejected the ROM application, stating there was no error/mistake apparent on record. The Appellant contended that the rejection was without proper reasons and bad in law.

4. Admissibility of Appeal Against ROM Rejection Order:
The Appellate Authority examined whether the appeal against the ROM rejection order is admissible under Section 100 of the CGST Act. It was determined that an appeal can only be made against an advance ruling pronounced under Section 98(4). Since the appeal was against the ROM rejection order, which is not an appealable order under Section 100, it was deemed not maintainable.

5. Time Limitation for Filing an Appeal:
The Appellant argued that the limitation period for filing an appeal should be calculated from the date of the ROM rejection order. However, the Appellate Authority held that the appeal should have been filed against the original advance ruling within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of communication of the order, or within an extended period not exceeding 30 days. The rejection of the ROM application does not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal against the original order.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by M/s Durga Projects & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd against the ROM order dated 11th Sept 2020 was dismissed on the grounds that it is not maintainable. The ROM rejection order does not merge with the original advance ruling, and the statutory time limit for filing an appeal against the original advance ruling had expired.

---