Appellate Orders

The MAAAR  rejected the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant i.e. M/s. Micro Instrument, to restore their Application dated 21.08.2019 seeking Rectification of Mistake in the MAAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22.03.2019, as the same had already been decided by the erstwhile Appellate Authority vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26A/2018-19 dated 11.12.2019 , and therefore, the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant was not legally maintainable and hence the same was liable to be rejected.

The MAAAR set aside the Ruling passed by the MAAR, wherein the Advance Ruling application filed by the Appellant has been declared as non- maintainable. It was further held by the MAAAR that the Maharashtra AAR should consider the subject application on merits. Accordingly, the application for the Advance Ruling was remitted to the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority for fresh consideration on merits. 

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that  the decision of the MAAR that the application is barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 for reasons given in the order. As regards the issue of denial of fair chance of hearing with sample, we hold that the Appellant may approach the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority with a fresh application along with the sample/reports of the products and in that case, the MAAR shall decide the issue on merits as per the provisions of law.

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that the Applicant was not entitled to avail Input Tax Credit in respect of taxes to be paid on the purchase of ‘Paver Blocks’ in terms of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that activities carried out by the Appellant would amount to supply in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the same would be liable for GST subject to the condition that the monthly subscription/contribution charged by the society from its members is more than Rs. 7500/- per month per member and the annual aggregate turnover of the society by way of supplying of services and goods is also Rs. 20 lakhs or more. Further, their second question regarding correctness of the GST liability on the basis of the illustrative invoices cannot be answered on account of the above stated reasons.

The MAAAR while upholding the Maharashtra AAR Order held that the services rendered by the Applicant to M/s. Posco ISDC Pvt. Ltd. as a sub-contractor would not be classified as GTA service (SAC 996791) when the service rendered by M/s. Posco ISDC Pvt. Ltd. as the main contractor, was already classified as GTA service (SAC 996791) and which was going to remain unchanged. As regards the second question asked by the Appellant, it was further held that since the Appellant could not act as GTA in the proposed transaction, they were not entitled to charge 12 % GST on the forward charge basis, in terms of the Notification No. 20/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 22.08.2017. As regards the question (iii) asked by the Appellant, it was held that since this question did not pertain to the Appellant, and that the proper person to ask this question would be M/s. Posco ISDC Pvt. Ltd., they refrain from answering this question in terms of the provisions laid under section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. As regards the question (iv) asked by the Appellant, it was held that the said question was not covered under section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, they do not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling in this matter.

The MAAAR held that the amount collected as membership subscription and admission fees from members was not liable to GST as supply of services.

The MAAAR held that they did not find any reason to amend our original order dated 17.02.2019, wherein it was held that the supply of the ElectroInk along with the other consumables comprising of blanket, photo imaging plate, binary ink developer, HP imaging oil, blanket web and other machinery products by the Appellant to its customers is ‘mixed supply’ and not the ‘composite supply’, as being claimed by the Appellant.

The MAAAR held that Input Tax Credit against the GST paid on the purchase, and fabrication of the motor vehicles, used for carrying cash and bullions, is available to the Appellant.

The MAAAR held that  the said supply is a taxable supply in the form of construction of complex/building/civil structure or a part thereof including a complexes or buildings for which consideration is received by the appellant in installments and therefore it is a composite supply of Works Contract covered u/s.2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017.