AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only,- (a) on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in subsection (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling; (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. 3. Under Section 103 (2) of the Act, this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the said advance ruling have changed. 4. Under Section 104(1) of the Act, where the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruling pronounced by it under sub-section (1) of Section 101 has been obtained by the appellant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, it may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab-initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the appellant as if such advance ruling has never been made. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correctly holding that electricity is exempt supply under Notification 2/2017 -CT(R); • that rather than delivering a ruling on the question of blocked credit, the original authority exceeded its jurisdiction in delivering a ruling on apportionment of credit in terms of Section 17(2). Hence, the Appellant prayed that the Appellate Authority may pass orders to set aside impugned order under Appeal and pass such other orders, as deemed fit. Personal Hearing: 5. The Authorized Representative (AR) appeared for the personal hearing and reiterated the facts and grounds of appeal. The AR stated that Para 9.1, 10.4 and 10.5 of the Advance ruling Authority Order dated 31.08.2022 are beyond the scope of question raised. 5.1 In response to the query, whether the Appellant owns the impugned property at T. Nagar, Chennai. AR stated that the property is owned by Shri V.S. Balaji and Ms. V. Subhasini in their individual capacity who incidentally are also the Partners of the Appellant Firm. 5.2 With regard to the query whether separate Invoices are raised by the Appellant to the Tenant for consumption of electricity, AR stated that separate monthly invoices were issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not granted any rationale in distinguishing their own decision in M/s Kumaran Oil Mill; • that the conclusion of AAR that electricity was sold by the Appellant was contrary to the Electricity Act; • The AR has added the following points in the personal hearing proceedings:- • It is submitted that the answers to the AAR itself is beyond the scope of question sought. The question was on specific allowability of an invoice u/s 17(5)(c)/d but the AAR has deviated and examined the subject matter in terms of section 17(2) which is (a) not under question (b) not legally relevant too. The AAR has sought to alter the fact that tax is in fact paid on the recovery of electricity costs which is ancillary to other supplies. This is beyond scope of AAR to alter facts of a transaction which is not even disputed by the jurisdiction AO. • Point 3 and 5 are correlated. On the specific questions of why property is owned by individuals and operation/maintenance by the firm, it was submitted that under Partnership Act, Partnership firm has no separate legal existence. Hence, owner ship of property by partnership firm is only supplying collective owne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Chennai, have procured, erected and commissioned Solar Power Panels for generation of electricity at their additional place of business at R.Kombai Village, Kujilyambarai Taluka, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. The question framed before the Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) seeking ruling in terms of the Sec. 97(2) of CGST/TNSGST Act, 2017 was "Whether the input tax credit on solar power panels procured and installed is blocked credit under Section 17(5) (c) and (d) of CGST/ TNGST Act, 2017". 7.3 The issue raised before the AAR indicates their intention is to claim the ITC on the inputs/input services used in the setting up of Solar Power Plant for generation of electricity at their additional place of business at R. Kombai Village, Kujilyambarai Taluka, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu, in relation to their taxable outward supply VIZ: maintenance of an immovable property at Chennai. 7.4 The main ground of appeal is that the AAR had exceeded its jurisdiction in delivering a ruling on apportionment of credit in terms of Section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, rather than delivering a ruling on the question of blocked credit. Hence, it is relevant here to revisit the question raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service; (d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business. Explanation:- For the purposes of this Chapter and Chapter VI, the expression "plant and machinery" means apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support that are used for making outward supply of goods or services or both and includes such foundation and structural supports but excludes- (i) land, building or any other civil structures; (ii) telecommunication towers; and (iii) pipelines laid outside the factory premises. 8.1 Thus, as per the Sec. 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, ITC shall not be available (i.e., blocked) to a taxable person on the "works contract service(WCS) received "for construction of an immovable property" [being the outward supply of the taxable person], except in a case whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AAR was totally irrelevant. Moreover, the issue raised is extraneous to provide a ruling, as it is not within the scope of Section 97(2)(d) of the Act i.e. admissibility of input tax credit. 9. Moreover, the provisions of the Section 17(2) of the Act, read with the Rule 43(1) (a) of the CGST/TNGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to Rules) disentitles the ITC in this case on the Solar Power Panels used for installation of the Solar Power Plant which were used by the Appellant for supply of Electric Energy which is exempted from the whole of the GST payable under the Notification No: 2/20217 CT(R) dated: 28.06.2017 (Sl.No: 104). 9.1 We also find that the AAR had examined in length about - i) the Lease Deed dated 05.08.2021 between Mr V.S.Balaji & Mrs V. Suhasini who are the owners of the subject property at T. Nagar, Chennai (Lessor) and their Tenant -M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services India Private Limited (Lessee); and ii) the Maintenance Agreement dated 27.09.2020 between M/s VBC Associates, a Partnership Firm (Appellant), in charge of the Maintenance of impugned property and M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services India Private Limited. 10. As per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above terms and conditions of the said agreements, it is evident that the infrastructure for electric supply to the subject property was provided by the Lessor/owners of the property and the recurring expenditure towards the TNEB-power consumed and/or the diesel consumed for Gen-set shall be borne by the Lessee/Tenant. The Appellant is not under obligation to provide electricity to the tenants. The Appellants being the maintenance service provider is required only to maintain the back-up generator and other infrastructure provided by the owners of the impugned property at T.Nagar, Chennai. Hence, it is not the case of the Appellant that they are liable to provide electricity to the recipient of maintenance services of the impugned property at T.Nagar. 10.3 The electricity bills are in the name of the VBC Associates' and it is seen that the scope of the Appellant under the maintenance agreement is only to pay the common electricity charges, upfront, and claim the expenditure from the tenant as reimbursement. As the Appellant is only responsible for upfront payment and its reimbursement cannot be treated as the obligation to provide electricity. Thus, it is clear that Electricit....