ADVANCE RULING APPLICATION REJECTED FOR LACK OF ONGOING SUPPLY: SHRI VINAYAK BUILDCON VS AAAR RAJASTHAN
RAJASTHAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Before the Bench of:
1. Sh. Satish Kumar Agrawal, Member (Central Tax)
2. Sh. Ravi Jain, Member (State Tax)
Case Title :-M/s Shri Vinayak Buildcon
(GST AAAR RAJASTHAN)
Appeal No. RAJ/AAAR/APP/06/2021-22
Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2021-22/24 dated 01.10.2021
Date of Judgement/Order- 25th Febrary 2022
IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS
Para No. 4. As stated by the appellant herein, the builder, M/S Sanwaliya Build Creation LLP has been allotted a plot of land by the Urban Improvement Trust (I-JIT), Udaipur vide letter dated 30.07.2018 for construction of Residential Buildings thereon under the Affordable Housing Scheme under Chief Minister’s Awas Yojana-2015 as narrated hereinabove. The builder has entered into a contract with the appellant herein vide agreement dated 13.12.2019 requiring the appellant to provide services to the builder by way of performing the labour work portion of the said main work mainly related to the civil work and development of such residential houses. The scope of work which has been sublet to the instant appellant on pure labour services basis relates to construction, excavation, levelling, dressing, earth filling, soiling, reinforcement, RCC work, brick masonry, plaster work, flooring, toilet tiles, stone/marble choukhat, gutai, MS railing, outside painting, fixing of doors and windows, fixing of railing on staircase, electrical fittings, sanitary fitting and drainage etc. It has further been stated by the appellant that no supply of material or goods in involved in the scope of work that has been assigned on sub-letting basis by the builder to the instant appellant.
Para No. 6. It is stated by the appellant in the instant appeal that it was their understanding of the law that the services of labour work of construction of residential houses under Chief Minister’s Awas Yojana 2015 framed to achieve the objective of “Affordable Housing for All” under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana of the Government of India is exempted from GST by virtue of Sl. No. 10 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT@ dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly, during the continuation of the work, the appellant moved an application seeking Advance Ruling from the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling on the question which is reproduced below:
“Whether the services provided by the applicant falls under the exemption entry at S/. No 10 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Centra/ Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017 and eligible for exemption from payment of GST”.
Para No.14.2. We observe that the definition of advance ruling, when seen in the context of the issue involved in the instant appeal, provides that-questions seeking an advance ruling can relate to either supply of goods or supply of services or both by the applicant. In the instant case, the question concerns supply of services only by the applicant (appellant herein). However, as per the definition, the supply of goods or supply of services or both is qualified by two phrases viz. “being undertaken” or “proposed to be undertaken” by the applicant. The above phrases will be analysed a little later after examination of the factual position of the case based on the submissions of the appellant is completed.
Para No. 17.3. We observe that the two extension certificates issued by the RERA on 06.08.2020 and 03.09.2021 extend the period of the project by 12 months upto 16.04.2022 and 6 months upto 16.10.2022 respectively. The letter of extension of contract agreement as issued by the builder mentions the date of extension of the project as 16.10.2022 only (relatable to certificate dated 03.09.2021) and not as 16.04.2022 (relatable to certificate dated 06.08.2020). Since the extension of registration of the project upto 16.10.2022 was granted by RERA vide extension certificate dated 03.09.2021 only it can be inferred that the letter in question as issued by the builder was signed not before 03.09.2021 as mention of extension upto 16.10.2022 could have been made only after issuance of the RERA’s certificate dated 03.09.2021 only. However, the application seeking advance ruling in the instant case was filed on 06.07.2021 before the AAR, the date on which the extension letter was not in existence. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the extension of contract agreement as claimed to have been given by the builder to the appellant was not in existence on the date of fling of the application seeking advance ruling in the matter.
Para No. 20. The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly rejected and disposed off in the above terms.
