R&D funded by government grant qualifies as "supply" under Section 7 CGST; IP ownership irrelevant, exemption denied

AAR held that the applicant's R&D carried out for a government ministry through a central research council against grant-in-aid constitutes a "supply" under Section 7 CGST; ownership or licensing of IP is irrelevant to taxability. Though Notification 08/2024 inserted an exemption for R&D services funded by grants to notified institutions, the applicant did not establish notification under s.35(1)(ii)/(iii) of the IT Act, so the exemption cannot be claimed. Services do not fall under Entries 3/3A (not execution of Panchayat/Municipal functions) and are therefore taxable, with GST payable by the applicant.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether research and development activities performed by an entity under a grant-in-aid arrangement with a Central Government nodal agency constitute a "supply" within the meaning of Section 7 of the CGST Act.

2. If such R&D activities constitute a "supply", whether those activities are exempt from GST under Entry No. 3 or Entry No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) (as amended), which grant nil rate to certain services provided to government authorities in relation to functions entrusted under Articles 243G/243W of the Constitution.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1: Whether the R&D activity is a "supply" under Section 7

Legal framework: Section 7(1)(a) defines "supply" to include all forms of supply of goods or services made for a consideration in the course or furtherance of business. Section 2(17) defines "business" broadly (including activities whether or not for pecuniary benefit). Section 2(31) defines "consideration" and excludes only subsidy given by Central/State Government. Section 2(102) defines "services" as anything other than goods, money and securities. Notification amendments (Notification 08/2024-CT(Rate)) inserted Entry 44A exempting R&D services against grants by specified government entities/institutions (nil rate) subject to notification status.

Precedent treatment: The authority applied the settled principle that statutory definitions are to be read in their inclusive and purposive sense; it cited the strict approach to exemptions and referred to judicial dicta holding exemption notifications to require clear satisfaction of conditions (reference to Dilip Kumar & Co. for strict interpretation of exemption notifications).

Interpretation and reasoning: The authority analysed the factual matrix: centrally sanctioned grants routed through PFMS; the applicant required to carry out specified manufacturing (samples) and R&D deliverables (reports) and to submit final documentation for public dissemination. The authority found that (a) the entity performed organized R&D and manufacturing activities for consideration received from CCRAS; (b) Section 2(31)(a) covers payments made by any person in respect of supply and does not treat every grant as a non-consideration - only subsidies from Central/State Governments are excluded; (c) the receipt of grant linked to the specified R&D and deliverables satisfies the "consideration" element; (d) the systematic provision of R&D/make-up of samples for the project falls within "services" (and goods where manufactured) even if intellectual property/ownership is not transferred; (e) the broad definition of "business" captures organized non-profit or non-pecuniary activities when undertaken as systematic organized activity for consideration. The authority rejected the applicant's reliance on nemo dat/quasi-subsidy reasoning to negate supply, holding that ownership or IP transfer is not decisive for service classification and that nomenclature of payment as "grant" does not ipso facto convert it to a non-consideration unless it is a subsidy falling within the statutory exclusion.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - R&D services and related manufacture executed under grant-in-aid arrangements constitute "supply" under Section 7 when: (i) activity is performed for a payment by a government nodal agency in respect of specified deliverables; (ii) the payment is linked to the supplies rendered and therefore falls within the statutory definition of "consideration" (unless demonstrably a subsidy excluded by Section 2(31)). Obiter - observations on nemo datquod non habet and dictionary definitions of "license" as background reasoning; the factual note on PFMS flows is explanatory.

Conclusion on Issue 1: The activity constitutes a "supply" under Section 7 of the CGST Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2: Whether the supply (if any) is exempt under Entry No. 3 or 3A of Notification No.12/2017

Legal framework: Entry No. 3 exempts pure services provided to Central/State/UT/local authorities in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G or to a Municipality under Article 243W. Entry No. 3A exempts composite supplies (goods+services) where goods =25% of value, provided to those government bodies in relation to functions under Articles 243G/243W. Judicial approach mandates strict construction of exemption notifications; benefit of doubt goes to Revenue.

Precedent treatment: The authority applied the established rule that the expression "in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat/Municipality" requires a proximate and direct nexus between the service supplied and the function being discharged by the local body; mere thematic overlap (e.g., "health") is insufficient. The authority relied on jurisprudence requiring clear fulfillment of all exemption conditions and interpreted Notification amendments (omission/inclusions) contextually.

Interpretation and reasoning: The authority examined whether the recipient and the functional nexus required by the notification exist. It found: (a) recipient is a Central Government body (CCRAS under MoA) - a government entity but not a Panchayat or Municipality; (b) the scheme and project are centrally conceived and executed by a central nodal agency without delegation to or supply directly for Panchayats/Urban Local Bodies; (c) the services do not have the requisite direct nexus to a function actually being discharged by a Panchayat or Municipality - publishing reports for public domain and conducting central research do not amount to execution of functions entrusted to local bodies under Articles 243G/243W; (d) the small goods component (<10%) may render a supply composite but does not cure lack of the statutory functional nexus; (e) Exemptions were interpreted strictly and the factual matrix did not unambiguously satisfy the conditions. The authority also noted Notification 08/2024's Entry 44A (nil rate for R&D against grants by specific notified entities) but observed that the applicant had not shown entitlement to relief under that entry (i.e., no proof of being a notified institution under Income Tax Act clauses), hence not applicable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Exemption under Entry No. 3/3A requires (i) supply to the specified class of recipients (Central/State/UT/local authority) and (ii) a direct and proximate relation to functions entrusted to Panchayats/Municipalities under Articles 243G/243W; absence of either precludes exemption. Obiter - references to the Eleventh/Twelfth Schedule items and explanation that publishing research for public benefit does not automatically create the required statutory nexus.

Conclusion on Issue 2: Even if the activity is a "supply", it does not qualify for exemption under Entry No. 3 or 3A of Notification No. 12/2017; the supply is therefore taxable under GST at applicable rates (subject to any other valid exemption or notification upon proper proof).

CROSS-REFERENCES AND FINAL DETERMINATIONS

Interrelation: The determination that the R&D activity is a "supply" (Issue 1) is a prerequisite to considering applicable exemptions (Issue 2). The statutory definition of "consideration" and strict tests for exemption are the core legal touchstones connecting both issues.

Final rulings distilled from reasoning: (1) The grant-funded R&D/manufacturing activity carried out under the central scheme amounts to a supply under Section 7; (2) Conditions for Entry No. 3/3A exemption are not satisfied because the supply is not made to/local body nor is it directly in relation to functions entrusted to Panchayats/Municipalities under Articles 243G/243W; (3) Notification reliefs dependent on specific institutional notifications (e.g., Entry 44A) are inapplicable absent proof of prescribed notification status.

---