GST applies to reimbursed material costs for installation services but only supervision fees when recipient bears direct costs

The AAAR, Uttar Pradesh ruled on GST valuation for installation services. When material costs and execution work for line installation are reimbursed to the service provider, these amounts must be included in taxable value under GST. However, when the recipient bears entire material and installation costs directly and only supervision fees are charged, GST applies solely to supervision charges. The appellate authority rejected the lower authority's condition requiring GST invoice submission, finding no legal basis for this requirement in GST Act provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the value of material and cost of execution of work in the taxable value under GST.
2. Condition of submission of GST invoice by the customer/service recipient.

Summary:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Material and Execution Costs in Taxable Value

The Appellant, M/s Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, sought clarification on whether the value of material and cost of execution of work for installation of electric lines should be included in the taxable value under GST. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that such costs should be included in the taxable value when they are reimbursed by the customer, as per Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017. This is because the value of supply includes any amount the supplier is liable to pay but incurred by the recipient and not included in the price actually paid or payable.

Issue 2: Condition of Submission of GST Invoice

The AAR's ruling on the second question stated that the appellant should only pay GST on the supervision charge when the entire cost is borne by the service recipient, provided the customer submits a GST invoice. The Appellant contested this condition, arguing that there is no provision in the GST Act that mandates the submission of a GST invoice by the customer. The Appellate Authority agreed with the appellant, noting that the condition imposed by the AAR was unwarranted and had no legal backing.

Conclusion:

The Appellate Authority upheld the AAR's ruling that the value of material and cost of execution should be included in the taxable value when reimbursed by the customer. However, it struck down the condition requiring the submission of a GST invoice by the customer, confirming that the appellant should only pay GST on the supervision charges when the entire cost is borne by the recipient of the service.

---