Distribution company executing deposit works eligible for input tax credit under Section 16 CGST Act 2017

AAR, UP ruled that a distribution company executing deposit works under the second method is eligible for input tax credit under Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017. The work constitutes a works contract under Section 2(119) of CGST Act. Though property ownership vests with the company post-construction, since the work is performed on behalf of customers rather than for the company's own account, ITC on materials, labour, installation and overheads does not fall under blocked credit provisions of Section 17(5) CGST Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether undertaking of deposit works under both modes qualifies as a supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act.
2. Determination of the value of supply under the First mode and the Second mode.
3. Eligibility of DISCOM to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on material, labor, installation, and other overheads when deposit work is executed under the Second method.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification as Supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act:
The applicant, a distribution licensee, undertakes deposit works to develop electricity infrastructure. The ruling examined whether these activities qualify as a "supply" under Section 7 of the CGST Act. It was determined that both methods of executing deposit works qualify as a supply. The First method involves the consumer arranging materials and contractors, with the applicant supervising the work. The Second method involves the applicant arranging materials and installation, charging the consumer for these services. The ruling affirmed that these activities constitute a supply since they involve providing services and receiving consideration.

2. Determination of Value of Supply:
- First Method: In this scenario, the consumer arranges the work and the applicant only supervises. The ruling clarified that the value of supply should only include the supervision charges. The applicant is not responsible for the works contract services, which are executed by third-party contractors hired by the consumer. Therefore, the cost of materials and installation should not be included in the taxable value under GST. The applicant is liable to pay GST solely on the supervision charges.

- Second Method: Here, the applicant arranges the entire work, including materials and installation. The ruling stated that the value of supply includes the cost of materials and the cost of execution work reimbursed on a cost basis. The applicant charges GST on the total cost, including supervision charges, as it falls under "Works Contract" as per Section 2(119) of the CGST Act.

3. Eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC):
The ruling addressed whether the applicant is eligible for ITC on materials, labor, installation, and other overheads in the Second method. It was noted that since the construction of lines is done on behalf of the customers and not on the applicant's own account, the ITC does not fall under blocked credits as per Section 17(5) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the applicant is eligible for ITC, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the CGST Act.

Conclusion:
The ruling affirmed that the undertaking of deposit works under both modes qualifies as a supply. For the First method, only supervision charges are included in the value of supply, while for the Second method, the value includes the cost of materials and execution work. The applicant is eligible for ITC in the Second method, provided the conditions of Section 17(5) are met. This ruling is applicable within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling Uttar Pradesh and remains valid unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the CGST Act.

---