In re PSK Engineering Construction & Co. (GST AAAR Tamilnadu)
Question Raised
1. What is the rate of GST to be charged on providing works contract services to TANGEDCO for carrying out retrofitting work for strengthening the NPKRR Maaligai against seismic and wind effect and modification of elevation in TNEB headquarters building at Chennai.
2. Whether the entry in Sl.No.3 item (vi) of the Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is applicable to the appellant in instant case.
AAAR upheld following Ruling of AAR on above Questions
1. The rate of GST to be charged on the services provided by the applicant to TANGEDCO for carrying out retrofitting work for strengthening the NPKRR Maaligai against seismic and wind effect and modification of elevation in TNEB headquarters building at Chennai is 18% ((9% CGST + 9% SGST) as per SL.No.3(xii) of Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.20177 as amended.
2. The entry in SI.No.3 item (vi) of the Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is not applicable to the applicant in the instant case for the reasons discussed in Para 8 of the ARA order.
Read AAR Order : GST on Retrofitting works for strengthening NPKRR Maaligai etc.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING,TAMILNADU
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act.
The subject appeal is filed under Section 100(1) of the Tamilnadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017/Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) by PSK Engineering Construction & co. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’). The appellant is registered under GST vide GSTIN 33AAGFP24B3EIZF. The appeal is filed against the Order No.08/ARA/2021 dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Tamilnadu State Authority for Advance ruling on the application for advance ruling filed by the appellant.
2. The Appellant has stated that they are engaged in construction activities including retro fitting, restoration etc. of civil structures predominantly for Government, Public Sector Undertakings and Government entities. They had filed an application before Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling, seeking clarification on the following questions:-
1. What is the rate of GST to be charged on providing works contract services to TANGEDCO for carrying out retrofitting work for strengthening the NPKRR Maaligai against seismic and wind effect and modification of elevation in TNEB headquarters building at Chennai.
2. Whether the entry in Sl.No.3 item (vi) of the Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is applicable to the appellant in instant case.
3. The Original Authority has ruled as under:-
1. The rate of GST to be charged on the services provided by the applicant to TANGEDCO for carrying out retrofitting work for strengthening the NPKRR Maaligai against seismic and wind effect and modification of elevation in TNEB headquarters building at Chennai is 18% ((9%CGST + 9% SGST) as per SL.No.3(xii) of Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.20177 as amended.
2. The entry in SI.No.3 item (vi) of the Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is not applicable to the applicant in the instant case for the reasons discussed in Para 8 of the ARA order.
4.1 Aggrieved by the above decision, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. On the timeline for filing appeal, they stated that CBIC vide Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST dated 20th July 2021 in the context of extension of timelines vide Supreme Court Order on Extension of Limitation has clarified that the Order of Supreme Court shall be applicable for applications before ‘Appellate authority for Advance Ruling’; Supreme Court vide its Order dated 23 September 2021 had withdrawn the order with the direction that ‘notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021’. Therefore, the appeal is filed within the prescribed timelines mentioned in law.
4.2 On merits of the issue, the grounds of appeal are as follows:-
> 4 conditions are required to be fulfilled for the compliance of the Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017;-
