WORK ORDER CANCELLATION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION: ARG ELECTRICALS WINS RELIEF
RAJASTHAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Before the Bench of
1. Sh. Pramod Kumar Singh, Member (Central Tax)
2. Sh. Abhishek Bhagotia, Member(State Tax)
Case Title : M/s ARG Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
(GST AAAR RAJASTHAN)
Appeal No. RAJ/AAAR/APP/02/2020-21
Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2020-21/04 dated 14.05.2020 issued on 18.05.2020
ORDER NO. RAJ/AAAR/02/2020-21
Date of Judgment/Order- 3rd September 2020
IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS
Para No. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the CGST Act’) read with Section 100 of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017(hereinafter also referred to as the RGST Act’) by M/SARG Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 125 Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur Rajasthan-314001 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Appellant’) against the Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2020-21/04, dated 18.05.2020.
Para No. 3-
3.1 The appellant is engaged in business of supplying material and services of erection, testing & commissioning of supplied material in relation to electric infrastructure. The appellant is having business place at 125, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan-314001 and registered with GSTIN 08AAKCA4364N1Z6.
3.2 The Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter called as AVVNL) had Invited bids for providing of Rural Electricity Infrastructure for Household electrification in selected blocks of Dungarpur District of Ajmer DISCOM under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidhyutikaran Yojana scheme on turnkey basis for erection of 11KV & LT Single Phase lines, erection of single phase 11KV Sub-station and release of BPL domestic connections under RGGVY/TN-13&TN-14. The appellant being the lowest bidder had been awarded the above work. After accepting the work, the AVVNL had distributed the above work in two work orders, one for the “Supply of material/equipment for providing of Rural Electricity Infrastructure” and other for the “Erection, testing and commissioning of the supplied material/equipment”. Further the terms and conditions of the work orders are such that if the supply of material are not erected, tested and commissioned as per the requirement the payment would not be made by the AVVNL, Hence, both the work orders are interrelated and are composite supply of work contract. The same were submitted before advance ruling authority.
3.3 The appellant filed an application for Advance Ruling before the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling vide Application reference number AD080120002058T dated 14.01.2020 seeking clarification for the following two questions:
(1) Whether the contract entered into with AVVNL as per two work orders combine of supply, erection, testing and commissioning of materials/equipment’s for providing rural electricity infrastructure qualifies as a supply for work contract under Section 2(119) of the CGST Act?
(II) If yes, whether such supply, erection, testing and commissioning of materials/equipment for providing rural electricity infrastructure made to AVVNL would be taxable at the rate of 12% in terms of Sr. no 3(vi) of Notification No. 11/2017- C.T. (Rate) as amended w.e.f. 25.01.2018?
Para No. 4. The appellant in its Appeal has, Inter-alia, mentioned the following grounds of Appeal:
4.1 That the Order passed by the learned AA being arbitrary, capricious, against the law and facts of the case, as such per se illegal, hence deserves to be set aside.
4.2 That the impugned order passed by the AA is based merely on his presumptions, surmises and conjectures hence, deserves to be set aside.
4.3 Not Adhering the Natural Justice:
That the impugned order is passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the lockdown period all over the Country due to pandemic COVID-19, the appellant could not submit the reply as asked by him in Personal hearing on 19-03-2020 due to situation beyond his control. The appellant was also not in situation to ask authorised representative to attend/ submit the reply to Authority. The order per se is passed in haste without affording reasonable opportunity and hence deserves to be set aside.
ORDER
Para No. 7. In view of the above discussions and findings, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and rejected accordingly.
