In re Liberty Translines (GST AAR Maharashtra) The second question raised by the applicant is whether Applicant would be right in charging GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism to POSCO in terms of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 when POSCO as the main contractor is already charging GST @12% under the […]
In re Posco India Steel Distribution Centre Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Maharashtra) Q 1. What will he the classification of the services (whether under service codes 996511 or 996791 or 996799 or any other) of the Applicant in case the Applicant issues the consignment note however, the actual transportation is done through the third-party transporter […]
In re Security Printing And Minting Corporation of India Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) The issue before us is with respect to classification of Heat Activated Ultra-Violet (HAUV) Polyester Film with Adhesive Coating and U.V. Printing”, a product imported by the applicant and further sold by them. Applicant wants to ascertain the correct classification of said […]
In re Lear India Engineering LLP (GST AAR Maharashtra) Whether the design & Development services provided by Lear India to Lear entities situated aboard would fall under the category of OIDAR. services. In view of the provision to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, we find that this authority cannot admit the application in […]
The questions posed by the applicant involve determination of place of supply of the services provided, as the applicant considering himself as intermediary, has asked for a ruling on whether the services qualify to be an export or an intra-state supply of the services.
In re Shalini Manish Mittal (GST AAR Maharashtra) Issue- Whether online or telephonic educational coaching from India for corporate, individuals or any other entities residing required outside India is subject to GST and if so under which category is it taxed and section/notification covered for the same Held- On perusal of the provision of section […]
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
On perusal of the provision of section 97(2), we find that the question on the determination of place of supply has not been covered in the above set of questions, on which advance ruling can be given. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such questions which involve the determination of the place of supply of goods or services or both.
To summarize, Manufacture, Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Lifts/ Elevators is in the nature of Works Contract activity which results in creation of an immovable property. Hence in view of the above discussions and Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act, we are of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to ITC of GST paid on replacement of existing Lift/Elevator, in its premises.
From the submissions made on this issue it is seen that the applicant neither owns the said goods nor delivers the same to their customers. Applicant only facilitates the transaction between the buyer and the seller through their website and acts as an intermediary. We find that there is no sale of goods undertaken by the applicant in this case, therefore such supply will not be considered at all, as sale of goods effected by the applicant. When there is primarily, no sale of goods by the applicant, the question as to whether such supply will be considered as export sale under GST ACT does not arise at all.
