Contractor's advance ruling application dismissed for completed sub-contractor services under Section 95(a)

The AAR Maharashtra dismissed an advance ruling application filed by a contractor seeking classification and GST rate determination for sub-contractor services. The Authority held that under Section 95(a), advance ruling applications can only be filed for supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, not for completed supplies. Since the work order in question was completed on 31.12.2019, the application was not maintainable and was dismissed as the supply had already been completed before filing.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of GST rate to Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor) - 12% or 18%Rs.
2. Determination of the applicable Tariff Head for Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of GST Rate
The applicant, Aryan Contractor Pvt. Ltd., sought an advance ruling to determine the GST rate applicable to their services provided as a subcontractor. They highlighted their scope of work, including activities related to mining, quarrying, and construction for various projects. The applicant contended that if the main contractor is awarded a works contract for construction, the subcontractor falls under the 12% GST slab. However, the concerned officer did not provide any submissions on this matter.

Issue 2: Determination of Tariff Head
During the proceedings, the applicant presented relevant documents, including a work order, to support their activities. The authority examined the work order dated 31.10.2018, which outlined the scope of work, completion timeline, and provisions for liquidated damages in case of delays. The authority noted that the contract completion date was 31.12.2019 and observed that the applicant had not demonstrated any extension granted beyond this date. As per the CGST Act, an advance ruling can only be sought for activities being undertaken or proposed, not for those already completed. Therefore, since the supply was supposed to be completed by 31.12.2019, the questions raised by the applicant could not be answered under Section 95 of the CGST Act.

In conclusion, the authority did not provide answers to the questions regarding the applicable GST rate and Tariff Head for Aryan Contractor Private Ltd (Subcontractor) due to the completion of the relevant supply before the application was filed. The ruling emphasized the limitations on seeking advance rulings for activities already undertaken, as per the provisions of the CGST Act.

---