In re Cummins India Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra)
AAR held that division of the single Tender to answer particular situations and ignore other situations will not be the right way to go forward and therefore this Authority will not be able to answer the questions raised by the applicant.
From the submissions made by the applicant and the Tender Document it is clearly seen that the Tender conditions visualize a supply of goods as well as supply of services. The applicant feels that the impugned supply is a ‘composite supply’ where the principal supply is ‘supply of service’ and therefore according to the applicant GST will be leviable on the impugned supply at 18% being the rate of tax on the principal supply. According to the submissions the consideration for the described activity will be fixed single price and separate consideration has not been earmarked for the supply of services and for supply of goods. While the entire submissions made by the applicant are based on the premise that the impugned supply under the subject Tender is a single composite supply, we find that the applicant, in its submissions dated 8.04.2022 (Para Nos 2,3 and 4) has divided the supply under the Tender into 4 differents mentioned as A, B, C and D in the Table at Para 2 of the submissions dated 08.04.2022 further submitted that, “activities and arrangements of breakdown repair and top nq (‘A’ and ‘B’ above) being pure services, are not required to be ruled upon and so, the Applicant limitedly withdraws its application, to this extent”. Thus, the applicant has itself that the impugned supply can be sub divided into 4 types of supplies out of which it wants this Authority to consider only 2 types of supplies for decision. In other words, it means that the supply under the impugned Tender cannot be considered as a single composite supply of goods and services or both which are naturally bundled because the applicant itself has divided the Tender into 4 different supplies.
Further, we observe that the Tender is for one Work Order comprising of different types of activities and arrangements all under one document and the applicant wants this Authority to divide the impugned activities artificially in four parts and answer the questions pertaining only to Part ‘C” and “D”. Such division of the single Tender to answer particular situations and ignore other situations will not be the right way to go forward and therefore this Authority will not be able to answer the questions raised by the applicant. Hence the questions raised by the applicant in respect of activity mentioned in “C” and ‘D” of the Table above, are not being answered.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
PROCEEDINGS
(Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
The present application has been filed under Section 97 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” respectively] by M/s. Cummins India Limited, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions.
1. Whether arrangement for overhaul and repair of engines are “composite supply”?
