In re Purewal Stone Crusher (GST AAAR Uttarakhand)
Taxability of Abhivahan Shulk and Khanij Sampada Shulk –
Abhivahan Shulk is paid to TVPV only by the license holders and in lieu of this fee, the govt, agency is ensuring the right of passage as well as continued maintenance of supplies. Similarly, Khanij Sampada Shulk is paid only by the lease holders who have been given the right to extract, transport and sell RBM by the District Geology & Mining Department who are providing service to the lease holder through allowing right of mining and passage and ensuring supply and ensuring the fulfilment of all other conditions of the lease agreement. Both these fees are collected from a particular class of people i.e. holders of licence/lease allotted by the respective govt, agencies, who are providing the said services only to those particular group of people and not to the general populace. Thus quid pro quo between the person paying the fee and the collecting agency is very much present and both the cases qualify as ‘services’ and both the fees are ‘consideration’ in terms of GST Act definition. Accordingly both the fees are to be included in the taxable value, as defined in Section 15 of the GST Act 2017, of the service and are taxable to GST at appropriate rates as held by the AAR.
Penalty paid on stock of RBM on the orders of DM is outside the scope of supply or in the alternative it is an exempt service under GST and hence not taxable under RCM
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, UTTARAKHAND
(Proceedings under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017)
The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and UKGST Act”) by M/s Purewal Stone Crusher, Ramnagar, Nainital, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) against the Advance Ruling Order No.08/2018-19 dated 11/09/2018by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttarakhand in an application made by them.
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the UKGST 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 UKGST Act.
Brief Facts of the Case
The facts, in brief are –
I. M/s Purewal Stone Crusher, Ramnagar (hereinafter referred as ‘PSC’) are registered in Uttarakhand with GSTIN No. 05AAPFP3357G1Z2.
II. EGL made an application under Section 97 (1) of the CGST Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’) on 15.06.2018, seeking an Advance Ruling on the following issues –
(i) Nature of Road Usage Charges and Government Fee paid by the applicant in respect of following services-
