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.
A clear distinction needs to be drawn between goods given as ‘gift’ and those provided /supplied as a part of CSR activities. While the former is voluntary and occasional, the later is obligatory and regular in nature. CSR expenses incurred by the applicant have been mandated under the Companies Act, 2013. It is the applicant’s obligation to incur such expenses in order to be in compliant with the law. Since CSR expenses are not incurred voluntarily, accordingly, we are of the opinion that they do not qualify as ‘gifts’ and therefore its credit is not restricted under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.
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.
As per provision of section 95 of CGST ACT, this authority can give a ruling to an applicant on matters or questions raised, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
In re Space Combine (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Q-1 Whether the Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services (PMCS) provided by the applicant to recipient under the contract from State Urban Development Authority (herein after referred as ‘SUDA’) and the PMC under the contract for Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna […]
In re Vaishnavi Splendour Homeowners Welfare Association (GST AAAR Karnataka) The contention of the Appellant is that contributions upto an amount of Rs 7500/- per member per month are exempted from GST by virtue of the above entry and for contributions above Rs 7500/- per member per month, the difference amount alone is liable to […]
In re Smt. Anju Parakh (GST AAR Chhattisgarh) As the applicant failed to comply with the legal procedures despite being made known about the same as above vide letter dated 20.09.2019 and thereafter during the course of personal hearing held on 27.12.2019, this authority is of the considered view that their application at this stage […]
In re Soma Mohite Joint Venture (GST AAAR Maharashtra) The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the services provided by the Appellant in the impugned matter qualifies for inclusion under entry 3(vii) of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 (as amended by Notification No. 31/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 13.10.2017). It is evident that […]
In re Infinera India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Karnataka) Although the Pre-sales and Marketing Agreement in this Appellant’s case does mention that they are independent contractors and are not to act as an agent of Infinera US in any manner, we find that the actual activity performed by the Appellant as outlined in the BAPA […]
