Infrastructure company's GST advance ruling application rejected as service recipient cannot file under Section 95

The AAR, UP dismissed an application filed by an infrastructure company seeking advance ruling on GST liability for transmission line work under MVVNL supervision. The applicant claimed double taxation as it paid GST to both contractors and MVVNL on the same transaction value. The AAR held that the applicant was a service recipient, not supplier, and under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only suppliers can file advance ruling applications. The application was rejected on grounds of maintainability without examining the merits of the double taxation claim.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the work done by the applicant in Transmission Line under the supervision of MVVNL comes under the definition of supply as per section 15(2)(b) of UP GST Act, 2017Rs.
2. Whether GST is to be paid to MVVNL on the full amount of work done for load sanction of 11 KV lines by the applicantRs.
3. If the applicant pays GST on the entire value of work done to its contractors and also to MVVNL, will this not constitute double taxationRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition of Supply u/s 15(2)(b) of UP GST Act, 2017
The applicant, M/s Spring Infrastructures, is primarily engaged in the Land Developer business and has sought an advance ruling on whether the work done in the Transmission Line under MVVNL supervision constitutes a supply. The applicant argues that the shifting/modification of the transmission line does not involve any consideration or transfer of ownership, thus not qualifying as a supply. The MVVNL supervises the work and charges supervision fees along with GST, but the ownership of the transmission lines remains with MVVNL before and after the modification.

Issue 2: GST Payment to MVVNL
The applicant contends that GST should only be paid on the supervision charges levied by MVVNL and not on the entire cost of the transmission line work. The applicant emphasizes that the materials and labor for the work are provided by the contractor, who claims ITC on these expenses. The MVVNL's demand for GST on the entire estimated cost is seen as unjustified since the work is not a supply from MVVNL to the applicant.

Issue 3: Double Taxation
The applicant raises concerns about double taxation if GST is paid both to the contractor and MVVNL for the same work. The applicant argues that this would result in paying GST twice for the same transaction, which is against the provisions of the GST law and natural justice.

Discussion and Finding:
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) examined the application and found that the applicant, being a recipient of services from MVVNL, does not fall under the definition of a supplier as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017. The AAR clarified that only suppliers of goods or services can seek an advance ruling. Since the applicant is a service recipient, the application does not qualify for consideration.

Ruling:
No ruling can be given in the matter as the applicant does not fall under the definition of a supplier under the Advance Ruling provisions of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017.

Validity:
This ruling is valid within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling Uttar Pradesh and subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 until declared void under Section 104(1) of the Act.

---