Appellate Orders

Reimbursement of electricity expenses had not been made on actual basis by the lessee to lessor as it has been collected in advance with rent and further adjusted by raising the invoice by the lessor. Further, the appellant has failed to establish themselves as pure agent. Reimbursement of electric expenses would form part of taxable value in term of clause (c) subsection (2) of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017.

1. It was held that controller will attract GST at appropriate rate applicable to items of Chapter Heading 8504.     2.  Iron structure designed for use of solar panel is classifiable under Chapter Heading 7308 and neither be classified as solar power based devices nor called as solar power generators and the rate of tax as applicable to such devices or system cannot apply to the iron and steel structures.    3. Supply of different types of goods in bundle on a single invoice is falls under mixed supply and higher rate of tax is applicable.     4. supply of Solar water pumping system alongwith installation, benefit of entry No. 38 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT and entry No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-CT is available to appellant.

Appeal has been rejected. The appellant is engaged in development and leasing of the developed land to various industrial/non-industrial users and paid GST on none industrial plot. It was held that Appellant cannot claim the ITC of input services  procured for construction of immovable property (whether capitalized or not).

Appeal has been rejected. The appellant has constructed specific civil structure i.e. building, rooms and roads on his own plot to lease out the same on rent. It was held that construction is on his own a/c and also not covers in the definitions of plant & machinery, therefore, ITC of inputs and input services are not available.

Appeal has been rejected on delay filing.

Appeal by the party is rejected. It was held that one amount paid as 1st installment of lease premium before Lease agreement cannot be treated security deposit and not exempted from GST. 2 RFP issued for development of land for residential purpose and consequently leased, not exempted under entry no. 41 of Notification No. 12/2017 (CT) dated 29.03.2019. 3 Amount paid during the month of Feb 2019 after issuance of letter of acceptance dated 26.09.2018 for deposition of 1st Installment of Lease premium, lease agreement is not exempted under entry N. 41B which was inserted vide notification No. 04/2019 (CT) dated 29.03.2019 as time of supply of service is before effective dated of amended notification No. 04/2019 (CT) dated 29.03.2019.

Appellate Authority does not find any reason to interfere with the Original Ruling. Appeal dismissed.

The appellanthas relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs Prakash Chandra Mishra and others-2011(1) TMI 175-SC, wherein theHon'ble Supreme Court held that "Every procedure is to be understood as permissible in law till it is shown to be prohibited in law and as a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed". Abiding the law set by the Apex court, considering that there is no explicit prohibition for withdrawal in the current legal provisions, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and no ruling is extended.

1. For reasons as discussed, Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority relating to question No.1. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

2. On Question No.2 & 3, Le, on the eligibility of ITC paid on the works contract service for Pile foundation to the project site also claimed as foundation for the storage tanks and water tanks, as there is difference of opinion between the Members, no ruling is offered as per Section 101(3) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.

Uttarakhand Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling upheld the order passed by Authority for Advance Ruling.