Railway infrastructure services including reconstruction, maintenance, housekeeping and security classified as mixed supply taxable at 18%

AAR Maharashtra ruled that services comprising reconstruction, maintenance, housekeeping and security at Kalamboli Goods Shed do not constitute composite supply as these services are typically provided separately in ordinary business course. The work primarily involves cement concreting and infrastructure development rather than earthwork, making it ineligible for concessional rate under Notification 11/2017. Services are classified as mixed supply under Heading 995419, taxable at 18% being the highest rate applicable to works contract component. The question regarding Central Railway's ITC entitlement was deemed outside AAR's scope as rulings only bind applicants, not service recipients.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) were:

(a) The classification and applicable GST rate on the services undertaken by the applicant, namely "Reconstruction, Maintenance, Housekeeping and Security at Kalamboli Goods Shed near Panvel" for which the applicant receives 90% proportion of Terminal Charges as consideration;

(b) Whether the services rendered by the applicant qualify as a composite supply, works contract, or freight service, and the corresponding GST rates as per relevant notifications;

(c) Whether the applicant's services could be classified under the concessional GST rate for works contracts involving predominantly earthwork;

(d) Whether the Central Railway, as the recipient of the services, is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the GST paid to the applicant for these services.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Classification and GST Rate applicable to the services rendered by the applicant

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The GST Act defines key terms relevant to classification:

• "Composite supply" (Section 2(30) CGST Act): a supply consisting of two or more taxable supplies naturally bundled with a principal supply;
• "Principal supply" (Section 2(90) CGST Act): the predominant element of a composite supply;
• "Works contract" (Clause 119 of Section 2 CGST Act): a contract involving building, construction, fabrication, maintenance, repair, or similar services with transfer of property in goods involved;

Notification No. 11/2017-Central (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 (as amended) prescribes GST rates:

• Sr. No. 3(vii): Composite supply of works contract involving predominantly earthwork provided to Central/State Government attracts 12% GST (6% CGST + 6% SGST);
• Sr. No. 9(i): Transport of goods by rail attracts 5% GST (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST);
• Works contract services other than those qualifying for concessional rate attract 18% GST.

The Supreme Court ruling in CIT, Bangalore vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (1999) permits reliance on dictionary meanings when terms are undefined in the statute.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The applicant's contract involved reconstruction, maintenance, housekeeping, and security services at a goods shed for 10 years, receiving 90% of terminal charges as consideration. The applicant argued that the supply constituted a composite supply of works contract services eligible for a concessional 12% GST rate, or alternatively, as freight services taxable at 5% GST.

The jurisdictional officer contended that the contract was a composite supply involving goods and services, attracting 18% GST under works contract heading.

The AAR examined the nature of the services and the contract terms, noting that the applicant undertakes construction, maintenance, housekeeping, and security, with the goods shed becoming the property of the railway at the end of the contract. The applicant's work involved cement concreting of platforms and approach roads, drainage and water supply systems, and upkeep of infrastructure.

Applying the definition of works contract, the AAR held that the services qualify as works contract services due to the involvement of construction, maintenance, and transfer of immovable property.

Regarding whether the supply was a composite supply, the AAR noted that while construction and maintenance could be naturally bundled, housekeeping and security services are typically provided separately and are not naturally bundled with construction or maintenance in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the overall supply was not a composite supply but a mixed supply of various services.

Under Section 8 of the CGST Act, mixed supplies are taxed at the highest rate applicable to any of the individual supplies. The highest rate among the services was 18% for works contract (repairs and maintenance).

Regarding the concessional rate for works contracts involving predominantly earthwork, the AAR referred to the absence of a statutory definition of "earthwork" and relied on dictionary meanings and engineering principles. Earthwork involves excavation, earth movement, and related activities. The applicant's work primarily involved cement concreting and construction activities post-earthwork, with no evidence that earthwork constituted over 75% of the contract value. Hence, the concessional rate was not applicable.

On the question of classification as freight services taxable at 5%, the AAR found that the applicant was not providing transportation services but infrastructure and maintenance services. The terminal charges collected by the railway and shared with the applicant do not convert the applicant's services into freight services.

Key Evidence and Findings:

• Contract agreement detailing scope of work including reconstruction, maintenance, housekeeping, security;
• Nature of services involving immovable property and transfer thereof;
• Absence of evidence that earthwork predominated the contract value;
• Industry practice and statutory definitions regarding composite and mixed supplies;
• GST notifications prescribing rates for works contract, freight services, and composite supplies.

Application of Law to Facts:

The services were classified as mixed supply involving works contract (repairs and maintenance), housekeeping, and security services. Since housekeeping and security are not naturally bundled with construction in the ordinary course of business, the supply is mixed and taxed at the highest applicable rate, i.e., 18% GST.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The applicant's contention for concessional 12% GST rate for composite supply involving earthwork was rejected due to lack of evidence of predominance of earthwork. The claim for classification as freight services at 5% GST was rejected as the applicant did not provide transportation services. The jurisdictional officer's view favoring 18% GST on works contract services was accepted.

Conclusion:

The services rendered by the applicant are a mixed supply with works contract (repairs and maintenance) as the principal service, taxable at 18% GST.

Issue 2: Entitlement of Central Railway to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on GST paid to the applicant

Relevant Legal Framework:

Section 97 of the CGST Act provides for advance rulings on issues including admissibility of input tax credit but only in respect of the applicant. Section 103(1) states that advance rulings are binding only on the applicant and the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Section 100 provides for appeals against advance rulings by the applicant or concerned officer.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The applicant sought a ruling on whether Central Railway could claim ITC on GST paid to the applicant. The AAR noted that the advance ruling mechanism under Sections 97, 98, 100, and 103 is designed to address queries relating to the applicant's own tax liabilities and credits.

Since the question relates to the recipient of the services (Central Railway), not the applicant, it falls outside the scope of advance ruling. The ruling would not be binding on the recipient, who also cannot file an appeal under Section 100. Therefore, the AAR declined to answer the question on ITC eligibility of Central Railway.

Key Evidence and Findings:

• Statutory provisions limiting advance rulings to applicant's issues;
• Absence of jurisdiction to rule on recipient's ITC entitlement;
• Practical implications of binding effect and appeal rights under the Act.

Application of Law to Facts:

The question on Central Railway's ITC entitlement was not entertained as it lies outside the ambit of advance ruling applicable only to the applicant.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The applicant's request was acknowledged but legally disallowed due to procedural and jurisdictional constraints.

Conclusion:

The question on ITC entitlement of Central Railway was not answered.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"We find that the services provided by the applicant of reconstruction, repairs and maintenance, housekeeping and security of the Kalamboli goods shed to the Central Railway would not qualify as a composite supply of service. It would rather be treated as a mixed supply of service involving supply of various services which can be individually classified as under..."

"In order to constitute a composite supply, the services provided by the applicant should be naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. The service of housekeeping and security services can be and is normally provided separately by various agencies or is more often looked after by in-house employees. Such services are not handed over to the person who undertakes the construction or repairs and maintenance of any immovable property ordinarily in the course of business."

"Accordingly, we hold that the services provided by the applicant would be considered as a mixed supply and the same shall be treated as supply of works contract service (repairs and maintenance) under Chapter 995419 which attracts the highest rate of tax of 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST)."

"The works contract services supplied by the applicant would not be eligible for the benefit of Sr.No.3(vii) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central (Rate) dated 28.6.2017, as amended, from time to time, as the contract does not predominantly involve earthwork constituting more than 75% of the value of the works contract."

"The applicant is not providing any service of transportation of goods by rail. It is the Central Railway which is providing the said service. Therefore, the benefit of Sr.No.9(i) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 would not be available to the applicant."

"The question of admissibility of ITC to the recipient of the applicant i.e. Central Railway is not answered as it is outside the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act."

Final determinations:

• The applicant's services are classified as mixed supply with works contract (repairs and maintenance) as principal supply, taxable at 18% GST (9% CGST + 9% SGST).
• The concessional GST rate of 12% for works contracts involving predominantly earthwork is not applicable.
• The classification as freight service taxable at 5% GST is not applicable.
• The question of ITC entitlement of Central Railway is outside the scope of advance ruling and remains unanswered.

---