TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any matter referred to in sub- section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling. (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. 3. In terms of Section 103(2) of the Act, this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the original advance ruling have changed. 4. Advance Ruling obtained by the applicant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, shall render such ruling to be void ab initio in accordance with Section 104 of the Act. 5. The provisions of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding, Ascendas IT Park, CSTR Road, Taramani, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600 113 (here in after referred as the Applicant) is registered under the GST Act, 2017 vide GSTIN No. 33AABCF3459N1ZF. The Applicant has sought Advance Ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether the legal cost apportionment by FWEL to the Applicant amounts to the supply under GST? 2. If so, whether the Applicant is required to pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)? 2. In this regard the Applicant stated the following: * That the Applicant is a Project Office established in India by M/s Foster Wheeler (G.B.), United Kingdom ("FWGB") for the purpose of carrying out onshore services in India, as FWGB and M/s Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, United Kingdom ("FWEL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by FWEL to FWGB(Project Office) by apportioning the expenses incurred cost to cost basis without any mark-up and the Applicant would pass an on accounting entry in the books upon receiving invoice in respect of such apportionment. * That FWEL raised an invoice for GBP 45,68,086 (INR 41,33,69,300/-) on 28.03.2018 (copy submitted) on the Applicant towards such legal expenses and the Applicant accounted for such expenses in its book of accounts during March 2018. 3.0. In their interpretation of law in respect of the questions raised, the Applicant has stated the following: 3.1. The amount charged by FWEL is not leviable to GST as the transaction does not involve any supply. The activity of mere recharge of legal cost does not satisfy the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant. 3.4. They relied upon some judgments that no tax can be levied on attendant monetary transactions and they contended that the Applicant is not required to discharge any tax under RCM for payment made to FWEL towards reimbursement of legal expenses incurred. They also quoted few judgments to establish that sharing of expenses will not amount to service. 3.5. Hence they submitted that the payment to be made by the Applicant to FWEL is not for provision of any service by FWEL and thereby the Applicant is not liable to pay tax under RCM. 4. The State jurisdictional authority vide their letter dated 12.05.2022, submitted that legal cost apportionment by FWEL are taxable under RCM under GST Act. In respect of Centre jurisdictional Author....