In re Saisanket Enterprises (GST AAAR Madhya Pradesh)
We find that the first proviso to section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 is very clear, that the authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in case of an applicant under any of provisions of this Act. We find that Advance Ruling Authority has rightly rejected the appellant’s application as per the first proviso to section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 on the grounds that the question raised by the appellant before the Authority is pending with the DGGSTI and proceeding against the appellant is underway by the DGGSTI, Regional Unit, Indore.
Section 100(1) mandates that only a ruling pronounced under subsection (4) of section 98 of CGST, Act, 2017 can be appealed before the Appellate Authority for advance, Ruling. We find that the Advance Ruling Authority in its Order 20/2020 has rejected le application of the appellant under section 98(2) of CGST, Act, 2017, and it cannot loc. said to be any advance ruling pronounced under sub-section (4) of section 98 of CGST, Act, 2017, therefore the appellants appeal fails on this count also.
In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the instant appeal is not maintainable in as much as it is covered in the first proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST, Act, 2017 and not maintainable under section 100(1) of CGST, Act, 2017 as well. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal deserves to be rejected as it is not admissible in terms of first proviso to section 98(2) and section 100(1) of CGST, Act, 2017.
Also Read AAR: Question raised in application already pending or decided- AAR rejects application
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
PROCEEDINGS
(Under section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
1. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the pro–visions of both the CGST Act and the MPGST Act are mirror image of each other except for certain specific provisions. Therefore, unless a specific mention is made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would mean a reference to the similar provisions under the MPGST Act and vice-versa. At places we may refer it. as GST Act.
2. The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter also referred to as “the CGST Act and MPGST Act”] by M/s Saisanket Enterprise (hereinafter also referred to as the “appellant”) against the order of Authority for Advance Ruling No.20/2020 dated 10.12.2020
3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
i. The Appellant M/s Saisanket Enterprises is a Works Contractor engaged in executing irrigation related works contracts. He is duly registered under the CGST / SGST Act in various states. In the State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) he is registered holding GSTIN 23AFYPM0856K1ZW.
ii. The Appellant had received a sub contract from M/s Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd (M/s Navayuga) holding GSTIN 23AAAACN7396R1ZP. By virtue of agreement dated 19-08-2015 he is executing certain works contracts pertaining to Narmada Valley Project. The said works is part of the work entrusted to M/s Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd by the Narmada Valley Development Authority of MP Government for executing the work of dam in the State of MP.
iii. On 01-07-2017 GST has been implemented in India replacing excise law, service tax & VAT. By virtue of the enactment the aforesaid contract between the appellant & M/s Navayuga stands governed by GST in the matter of Indirect Taxes. The Government of India has issued certain notifications under the CGST Act which have been co enacted for the State of MP. The relevant notifications are:
Serial No.3 item (iii) of Notification no 11/2017 CT (R) as amended on 22-08-2017 which runs as under:
|
(iii) Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause (119) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, supplied to the Government, a local authority or a Governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of, – or (a) a historical monument, archaeological site or remains of national importance, archaeological excavation, antiquity specified under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958); (b) canal dam or other irrigation works: (c) pipeline, conduit or plant for (i)water supply (ii)water treatment or (iii)sewerage treatment or disposal, |
6 | – |
M/s Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd was collecting & paying tax @ 12 % as per the above notification on its works contract agreement with the Narmada Valley Development Authority. It had also advised the appellant to follow suit. Hence for the period from 22-082017 the appellant has raised his invoices with 12 % tax to M / s Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd. The turnover of invoices issued between September 2017 to January 2018 is Rs 140917374 /- (taxable turnover) Meanwhile another entry number (vi) against Sr. No.3 substituted vide notification no 24/2017 with effect limn 21-09-2017 to Notification no 11/2017 CT (R) referred to above, that laid down as under:
