Appellate Orders

1. Whether the incentives received under “Atma Nirbhar Gujarat Sahay Yojna” dated 16.05.2020 declared by the Gujarat Government could be considered as subsidy and not chargeable to tax?

2. Whether the incentive received under said scheme could be considered as supply of service under the provisions of section 7 under CGST Act?

3. Whether the incentive received under said scheme if considered as supply then would it be covered under section 7(2) of CGST Act?

4. Whether the incentive received under said scheme could be considered as excluded from the value of taxable supply under section 15(2)(e) of CGST  Act, 2017.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld  the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by observing  that since they are not providing any services in relation to the NSDC programme implemented by the NSDC, they are not eligible for the  exemption provided in the entry 69 of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

In reply to the questions raised by the Appellant before AAAR, The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  held as under:

1. The service supplied by the Respondent under the Service Agreement dated 1 March 2013 constitute a mixed supply of services falling under the Heading “ accounting services” having SAC 9982,  and under the Heading “other professional, technical and business services” having the SAC 9983. 

2. The service supplied by the Respondent under the Marketing Services Agreement dated 1 December 2012 constitute a mixed supply of Services falling under the Heading “Research and Development services” having SAC 9981, under the   Heading “Other professional, technical and business services” bearing SAC 9983, and under the Heading “other miscellaneous services” bearing SAC 9997. 3.We cannot pass any ruling in relation to the export of services, as the same would require the determination of the place of supply of services, which is not under the jurisdiction and scope of the Advance Ruling Authority.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  held that the entire gamut of activities of the Appellant is in the nature of the composite supply, of which intermediary services is the principal supply. Further, as regards the services provided by the Appellant to their Client, namely Sabre APAC is export or otherwise, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction to decide the place of supply of service, which is one of the pre requisites to determine the export of services in terms of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and hence we cannot pass any ruling in respect of the same.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld  the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by observing that the ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority in as much as the activities performed by the PIL, on the goods of the Appellant, are in the nature of the Job work and accordingly attract 18% GST.

1. Whether contract involving supply of equipment /machinery & erection, installation & commissioning services without civil work thereof would be contemplated as composite supply of cattle feed plant under GST regime? If the supplies would qualify as composite supply, what would be the classification of this bundle and applicable tax rate thereon in accordance with Notification No. 01/2017 – CT(Rate) dated June 28, 2017 (as amended). 2. Whether contract involving supply of equipment /machinery & erection, installation & commissioning services with civil work thereof would be contemplated as works contract service or not. If the supplies would qualify as composite supply of works contract, what would be the classification and applicable tax rate thereon in accordance with Notification No. 11/2017 – CT(Rate) dated June, 28, 2017 (as amended).?

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld  the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by observing that the Fan described under 8414 do not at all have any resemblance with a FCU.  Therefore, there is no reason to believe that FCU will be covered by heading 8414.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld  the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by observing  that the bounce charges recovered by the Appellant from their borrowers on account of the default of the borrowers, where their repayment instruments get dishonored due to lack of the sufficient fund in their bank account, will attract GST.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld  the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by observing  that the penal charges / penalty recovered by the Appellant from their borrowers on account of the delay in payment of EMI by borrowers are adequately covered under clause 5 (e) of the Schedule II of the CGST Act, and will attract GST.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld  the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority.