Case Law Details
In re Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, modify the AAR ruling to the extent that the supplies under question would not be considered as ‘Composite Supply’ in terms of section 2(30) read with section 2(90) of the CGST Act, 2017.
It is argued by the Appellant the supplies under the present case are not being made in the conjunction with each other, as the supply of services i.e. erection, commissioning, installation, testing etc. are undertaken only after the supply of the goods, i.e. UPS systems and other accessories, have been effected to the recipient of the goods, i.e. DMRC after carrying out all the inspection procedures by the persons, authorized by the Recipient in this regard. It is also argued by the Appellant that services of erection, commissioning and installation of the UPS Systems by the Delhi unit begins only after the ownership/title of the said goods has already been transferred from the Appellant to the Recipient. Hence, the above said services cannot be said to be supplied in conjunction of the supply of the said goods, thereby, precluding the said supplies from being in the nature of “Composite Supply” as envisaged under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017. Here also, we find the Appellant’s argument cogent and compelling.
It is also opined here that out of the two supplies, i.e. supply of UPS Systems and supply of services like erection, commissioning, installation, testing, etc., it would not be proper to claim one of the supplies as the ‘Principal Supply” as envisaged under section 2(90) of the CGST Act, 2017, as both the supplies i.e. the supply of goods and the supply of services are equally important and indispensable, because in the absence of any of these two, the objective and purpose of the subject agreement cannot be achieved. Thus, even this key requirement of the ‘Composite Supply’ is not satisfied by the supplies under question. The AAR based its ruling on the sole premise that the supply of the said goods as well as the services have been agreed to be provided by the Appellant to the Recipient under the single contract, thereby concluding the supplies under question to be the composite supply without appreciating the fact that the said supply of goods and services are made by the two distinct taxable persons, i.e. Maharashtra (GSTIN) unit and the Delhi (GSTIN) unit of the Appellant. Here, it is stated that just because some supplies of goods or services or both have been included, or made part of, the one single agreement/contract, as per the convenience of the parties entering into the said agreement, does not make those supplies as composite supply. It is further opined that for any supplies to qualify as the composite supply, it has to satisfy the various essential conditions, which have been discussed herein above. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that supplies under question do not satisfy those essential conditions stipulated for the Composite Supply under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Thus, in view of the above discussions, it is observed that the observation made by the Advance Ruling Authority, against which the Appellant has preferred the present appeal, is not proper and legal, and hence the same warrants to be set aside. Thus, we pass the following order:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
