In re H.P. Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
The Appellate authority did not find any reason to amend our original order dated 17.02.2019, wherein it was held that the supply of the Electronic 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.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
PROCEEDINGS
(under Section 102 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
A. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act.
B. In the present case, appeal had been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”] by H.P. Sales India Pvt. Ltd., (herein after referred to as the “Appellant” or Applicant interchangeably) against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-38/2017-18/B-45 dated 08.06.2018, which was disposed of by the AAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/21/2018-19 dated 17.02.2019. However, pursuant to the said AAAR order dated 17.02.2019, the Appellant, M/s. H.P. Sales Pvt. Ltd., has brought to our notice that the impugned AAAR Order dated 17.02.2019 had not considered the additional submissions dated 11.02.2019 in entirety, filed by them before the AAAR, which was also referred and duly relied upon by them in favour of their case during the course of the personal hearing conducted on 12.02.2019. They, further, pleaded that non consideration of the abovementioned additional submissions dated 11.02.2019, which would have significant bearing on the impugned AAAR order dated 17.02.2019, is an error, which is error, apparent on the face of the record, and hence the same need to be amended as per the provision of section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is reproduced herein under:
Section 102 of CGST Act 2017: Rectification of Advance Ruling
The Authority or the Appellate Authority may amend any order passed by it under section 98 or section 101 or section 101, so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the Authority or the Appellate Authority or the National Appellate Authority on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, the applicant or the appellant within a period of six months from the date of the order:
Provided that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit shall be made unless the applicant, appellant, the Authority or the Appellate Authority has been given an opportunity of being heard.
C. Further, the Appellant, in support of their submissions made in the application for rectification of error, have also cited various judicial pronouncements, some of which are being mentioned herein below:-
(i) Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP [2008 (221) ELT 16 (SC)];
(ii) Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of C.M.S. Info Systems Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East & Ors.[2019-VIL-326-BOM]
(iii) Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Rostam Parvaresh Vs. Union Of India [2010 (259) E.L.T. 42 (Bom)]
All the above judgments have invariably held that that Ignoring, non- recording, or non-consideration of the submissions, made by the parties would amount to error apparent on the face of the record, and the same needs to be rectified by the adjudicating authority.
D. Thus, in view of the above submissions, the abovementioned legal provision of section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, and various judicial pronouncements, cited by the Appellant in favour of their submissions, we are convinced that the impugned AAAR Order dated 17.02.2019 warrants rectification as the additional submissions dated 11.02.2019 filed by the Appellant has truly not been considered in the impugned AAAR order dated 17.02.2019.
E. Accordingly, the Appellant was granted personal hearing in the matter, which was held on 14.08.2019.
Personal Hearing
1. Personal Hearing in the instant matter, conducted on 14.08.2019, was attended by Shri K. Sivarajan, C.A., on behalf the Appellant. He reiterated the additional submissions filed on 11.02.2019 and contended that the impugned AAAR order dated 17.02.2019 warrants rectification as per the provision of section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the said AAAR order dated 17.02.2019 did not consider the aforesaid additional submissions filed before the Maharashtra AAAR on 11.02.2019.Shri P.R. Nilewad, the jurisdictional officer also attended the above said hearing, wherein he reiterated the earlier submissions filed before us.
2. The additional submissions filed by the Appellant on 11.02.2019, which forms the basis for the present application filed under section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017 are as under:
3. Appellants are inter-alia engaged in supplying HP Indigo printers and the consumables to re-sellers, who in turn supply them to end customers. The following points are worth noting in this regard:-
I. The Indigo press machine is sold upfront to the reseller/ end customer as per mutually agreed terms;
II. Electro Ink and the consumables required for printing are then supplied to resellers, who supply them to end customers; and
III. Spare parts are sold to resellers, who consume such spare parts in the course of providing maintenance services to end customers.
4. It may be noted that the above transactions (i.e. l, II and III) are entirely independent of each other and are distinct supplies vis-a-vis each other from a Goods and Services Tax (GST) perspective.
The subject matter under the present appeal is the composite supply of Electro Ink along with other consumables (as per II above) by the Appellant to the reseller and from the reseller to the end customer.
Further, the two main points of contention are:-
1. Whether the supplies are in the ordinary course of business and
2. Whether the supplies are naturally bundled.
5. The facts of supply of Electro Ink and consumables are provided in detail in the appeal memorandum filed by the Appellant.
In addition to the facts submitted in the appeal document and the Impugned Order, for the sake to provide further clarity we wish to bring the following supplemental facts:
The Electrolnk and the consumables are supplied under the following methods:
