TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the 'appellant') against the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling in GST vide Order No. RAJ/AAR/2021-22/24 dated 01.10.2021. The Appellant herein has submitted the instant appeal in this office in hard copy on 28.10.2021 after payment of fee amounting to Rs.10,000/- against CGST and Rs.10,000/- against SGST vide CIN SBIN21100800333322 dated 28.10.2021. BRIEF FACTS: 3. As narrated by the appellant in the application seeking advance ruling as also in the instant appeal, the appellant, M/s Shri Vinayak Buildcon, 7, E-Class, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur (Rajasthan), having registration under GST with GSTIN 08ACMFS6195A1ZU, is engaged in the supply of services of construction of residential houses on pure labour basis to M/s Sanwaliya Build Creation LLP (hereinafter also referred to as "Builder") who is engaged in construction of houses under the Affordable Housing Scheme under the Chief Minister's Awaas Yojana-2015 of the Government of Rajasthan which has been framed to achieve the objective of "Affordable Housing for All" under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY) of the Government of India. 4. As stated by the appellant herein, the build....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able Housing for All" under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana of the Government of India is exempted from GST by virtue of SI. No. 10 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly, during the continuation of the work, the appellant moved an application seeking Advance Ruling from the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling on the question which is reproduced below: "Whether the services provided by the applicant falls under the exemption entry at SI. No 10 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017 and eligible for exemption from payment of GST". 7. According to the appellant, the appellant is compelled to deposit GST despite falling in the exempted category and, therefore, the above mentioned application seeking advance ruling was filed but the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling has, vide order dated 01.10.2021, rejected the application on the basis of wrong finding and interpretation of facts and held that supply of goods or services undertaken by the appellant is prior to the date of filing, hence, application is not maintainable. Appeal against the Advance Ruling: Grounds 8. While submitting the instant appeal, the appellant has m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....houses which are being constructed under aforesaid scheme. (vi) That in an identical case of M/s Sevak Ram Sahu of Jaipur, Advance Ruling reported at 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 437 (AAR-GST-Raj.), the appellant was a sub-contractor supplying pure labour services for Chunai and Plaster work for construction of residential houses under affordable housing scheme under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana to main contractor executing the project under agreement with the Government of Rajasthan. In the said case it was held that pure labour contract services supplied by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of a civil structure or any other original works is exempted under Entry 10 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate). Further, the said exemption is not person-centric but project-centric. Accordingly, sub-contractor is eligible for exemption for supplying aforesaid services for aforesaid project which is an original work. The ratio of the above case law applies equally in the present case as well. Prayer in Appeal 9. While submitting that the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the AAR is liable to be set as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017. 13.1. Before proceeding further to consider the prayer made by the appellant we consider it necessary to examine the reasoning given in the order passed by the AAR. We observe that the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the AAR on the application dated 06.07.2021 filed by the appellant seeking advance ruling in the matter, after reproducing in Para-7 the definition of "Advance Ruling" as provided under Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, gives the reasoning in Paragraph 8 as follows:- "From the definition it is very clear that the scope of the advance ruling for the Authority for Advance Ruling is limited to the transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. In the instant case, as already narrated, the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 06.07.2021 before the AAR with respect to supplies undertaken for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021. Hence, the case is out of the purview of the advance ruling." 13.2. We further observe that in view of the reasoning reproduced above, the AAR has passed the order dated 01.10.2021 in the following manner:- "As the question posed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the issue involved in the instant appeal, provides that questions seeking an advance ruling can relate to either supply of goods or supply of services or both by the applicant. In the instant case, the question concerns supply of services only by the applicant (appellant herein). However, as per the definition, the supply of goods or supply of services or both is qualified by two phrases viz. "being undertaken" or "proposed to be undertaken" by the applicant. The above phrases will be analysed a little later after examination of the factual position of the case based on the submissions of the appellant is completed. 15.1. Admittedly, the application seeking advance ruling in the matter was filed by the applicant (appellant herein) on 06.07.2021 before the AAR and the same was rejected by the AAR vide order dated 01.10.2021 holding that the application is not maintainable as the same relates to supply of services undertaken prior to the date of filing of application. It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant is still providing the services as per the agreement in question and the AAR was apprised of this fact during the course of personal hearing. 15.2. In view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the agreement has already elapsed. However, without going into these questions at this stage, we are examining the factual position with regard to currency of the period of the agreement in question which has been submitted to and taken into consideration by the AAR. 17.1. From perusal of the copies of certificates of extension of registration which have been attached to the appeal at pages 23 to 27, we observe that the same are a bunch' of three documents, one of them being a letter dated 29.09.2021 from the appellant addressed to the AAR with reference to the personal hearing held on 27.09.2021 submitting that the subject work under the said contract is still continuing and the period of completion of the said work stands extended upto 16.10.2022. Copy of document showing such extension is stated :o have been attached as Annexure-1. From perusal of Annexure-1 it reveals that the same consists of two separate documents which are certificates of extension of registration issued by Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur (RERA) in respect of the group housing project of the instant builder in Debari and Kamlod Villages of Girwa Tehsil in Udaipur District. While t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to the notice of the AAR during personal hearing but the record of personal hearing dated 27.09.2021 does not find mention of such a fact despite the fact that the record is also signed by the Authorised Representative of the appellant. Further, the appellant has made no submissions in the appeal as regards the letter dated 29.09.2021 which is addressed to the AAR and which contains the said two extension certificates issued by RERA as its annexures. One may try to suppose that the appellant claims that the said letter has been sent to the AAR for communicating the extension of contract agreement but strangely enough, there is no claim in the appeal to the effect that the said letter was ever communicated to the AAR rather the appeal is completely silent in this regard. It is also a fact that copy of the said letter dated 29.09.2021 as attached to the appeal does not bear any acknowledgement of receipt recorded by the addressee thereon. Hence, it is not possible to infer that the said letter was ever communicated to the addressee. Be that as it may, since the appellant has mentioned nothing in the appeal as to what is the purpose of attaching the said letter to the appeal nor ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been submitted to the AAR with the application seeking advance ruling and the letter from the builder showing extension of contract agreement was not in existence at the time of filing application seeking advance ruling, we now proceed to decide the point as to whether the supply of services by the appellant in the instant case is covered by either of the phrases "being undertaken" or "proposed to be undertaken" by the applicant and whether the application filed by the appellant before the AAR was maintainable in terms of the provisions of Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017. 18.1. We observe that advance ruling in GST law, as the term itself would indicate, is a decision provided in advance by the prescribed authority on such matters which concern the tax liability of the applicant with respect to supply of goods or services or both. As provided in Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Authority or the Appellate Authority shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section 2 of section 97 for advance ruling and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he supply of services by the appellant to the builder in the instant case commenced from 01.04.2019. The agreement dated 13.12.2019, duly notarised and signed by both the builder and the instant appellant being the supplier of service to the builder, specifically mentions that supply of services under the agreement by way of construction at the site started on 01.04.2019. The agreement further provides that the duration of the contract for completion of the said project by the second party i.e. the appellant herein, under the agreement shall be for a period of 24 months i.e. from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021. We find that the appellant did not file any application seeking advance ruling on the question of applicability of exemption in terms of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R), dated 28.06.2017 to the services proposed to be provided by him to the builder, either before or at the time of commencement of the supply of service on 01.04,2019. Thereafter also no application seeking advance ruling was filed by them even on the date of signing the written agreement on 13.12.2019 or during the entire period of currency of the agreement which finally came to an end on 31.03.2021 while the appella....