TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the applicant's supply to the joint venture constituted a composite supply of works contract services; (ii) Whether the concessional rate under Sl. No. 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applied to the subject works.
Issue (i): Whether the applicant's supply to the joint venture constituted a composite supply of works contract services.
Analysis: The supply was examined on the basis of the contract entrusted to the joint venture and the specific portion allocated to the applicant. The applicant's scope covered supply, installation, testing and commissioning of machinery, plant, tools, equipment and related electrical works. The authority held that the applicant's activities were supplies to the joint venture, which was a separate taxable person, and could not be treated as a bundled works contract merely because the joint venture had received the main project from the railway undertaking. The authority further found that the machinery and plant supplied and installed by the applicant were attached to concrete base for stability and vibration control, and such attachment did not amount to immovable property attached to earth in the legal sense required for works contract classification.
Conclusion: The applicant's supply was not a works contract service and, on the facts found, the answer was in the negative.
Issue (ii): Whether the concessional rate under Sl. No. 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applied to the subject works.
Analysis: The concessional entry applies only to composite supply of works contract services involving original works pertaining to railways. Since the applicant's supply was held not to be a works contract, the threshold condition for invoking the notification was not met. The authority therefore held that the rate prescribed for works contract services relating to railway original works was unavailable to the applicant's supply.
Conclusion: The benefit of Sl. No. 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was not applicable, and the answer was in the negative.
Final Conclusion: The ruling denied both requested tax classifications and held that the applicant's subcontracted supply did not qualify for the concessional railway works-contract entry.
Ratio Decidendi: A supply to a joint venture will qualify as works contract service only if it is itself a contract for work on immovable property involving transfer of property in goods in execution of that contract; where the supply is merely installation and commissioning of machinery and plant fixed for operational stability, it does not constitute works contract and cannot claim the concessional railway works-contract rate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
