Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Indico Motors Private Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No.121/AAR/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/12/2023
Related Assessment Year :

In re Indico Motors Private Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu)

Indico Motors Private Limited, a company operating in the truck and trailer segment, sought clarification regarding the GST classification of its activity involving the fabrication of truck bodies on chassis supplied by customers. The company filed an application for Advance Ruling (ARA) with the Authority for Advance Ruling, Tamil Nadu, seeking guidance on whether this activity should be considered a sale or job work for GST billing purposes.


  • Background of the Applicant: Indico Motors Private Limited, registered with GST and engaged in body building fabrication for the truck and trailer segment, submitted an application seeking clarification on the GST classification of their activity.
  • Details of the Application: The Applicant provided details about their operations, including fabricating bodies for both OEM suppliers and open market customers. They highlighted relevant government notifications categorizing certain activities as job work.
  • Jurisdictional Authorities’ Remarks: The central authority affirmed that the applicant’s activity qualifies as job work under GST regulations. They referenced Section 2(68) of the CGST Act, Circular No.52/26/2018-GST, and relevant government notifications to support their stance.
  • Personal Hearing and Withdrawal: Despite scheduled personal hearings, the applicant did not attend but submitted a letter expressing their intent to withdraw the ARA application. The Authority considered the withdrawal request, and the application was disposed of accordingly.

Conclusion: Indico Motors Private Limited’s query regarding the GST classification of truck body fabrication, whether considered as sale or job work, was addressed through the withdrawal of their ARA application. The Authority for Advance Ruling, Tamil Nadu, acknowledged the withdrawal request, and the application was disposed of without further examination.


M/s. Indico Motors Private Limited, 35, SIPCOT Industrial Area, Phase II, Hosur 635109 (herein after referred to as The Applicant’), are registered with GST and hold GSTIN 33AA.BCI4002Q1ZP. The Applicant is engaged in Body building fabrication for Truck and Trailer segment.

2.1 The Applicant has submitted the copy of application in Form GST ARA – 01 and also submitted a copy of challan evidencing payment of application fees of Rs.5,000/- each under sub-rule (1) of Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 and SGST Rules 2017.

2.2. The Applicant is producing bodies for both OEM suppliers and for open market customers. The Applicant submitted that

> They have got designs to build body as per specifications from OEM suppliers and similarly open customers provide their design on which company is buildings it bodies.

> The OEM suppliers is buying body either by transporting the fully built up body to the OEM company where they fit them on chassis themselves or by supplying chassis at company end to the fabrication of body on the same.

> The open market customers supply chassis to the company on which the body is mounted as per the design either provided by the customer or as developed and approved by the company.

> As per the Notification No.20/2019(CTR) dated 30.09.2019, Government has categorized Bus body building’ as service by way of job work.

> Later another notification No .26 /2019(CTR) dated 22.11.2019 was issued explaining that Bus body building’ shall include building the body on chassis of any vehicle falling under Chapter 87 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

> They rely on Advance ruling vide Order No.06/2009 dated 03.05.2019 passed by AAR, Madhya Pradesh, vide which the Authority has categorized Bus body building on chassis’ as job work service; They also rely on Advance ruling vide Order No. KAR/ADRG 20/2020 dated 07.01.2020 passed by AAR, Karnataka, wherein similar view was taken.

2.3. In their interpretation of law/facts in. respect of the questions raised, the Applicant submitted that –

> As per the two Notification issued by the Government, Notification No.20/2019(CTR) dated 30.09.2019 and notification No.26/2019(CTR) dated 22.11.2019, Government has clearly categorized that any activity. of Fabrication for Body building on Chassis either for the purpose of Bus Body building or Truck body building falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the body which is mounted on chassis is job work and bodies fabricated and produced as per designs and specifications provided by the customer and transported to the customer end should be considered as sale and not job work.

> The Authority for Advance ruling, as stated in statement of facts, has also ruled that fabrication of body on chassis is job work activity.

4.1. The Applicant’s jurisdictional Central Authority has submitted their remarks vide letter dated 25.04.2023 on the questions raised as under:

> The concept of job work under the GST regime entails a treatment or process to be carried out on the goods belonging to the principal.

> As per Section 2(68) of CGST Act, 2017, which defines job work, wherein 3 conditions have to be cumulatively fulfilled for an activity to qualify as job work; The applicant is found to fulfil the said 3 conditions.

> They undertake supply of service of job work by way of building the body over chassis provided by customers and the activity undertaken by them qualifies as a job work and thus in terms of Section 7(1A) read with clause 3 of the Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017, the same will be deemed to be a supply of service under GST.

> Circular No.52/26/ 2018-GST dated 09.08.2018, the applicable GST on the bus body building activity is clarified. Also as per Notification No.20/2019(CTR) dated 30.09.2019, the Government has categorised Bus Body building as service by way of job work.

> With regard to the issue Whether fabrication of truck body on chassis of Truck supplied by customer will be considered as sale or job-work for the purposes of GST billing’, it will be considered as job work as it satisfies all conditions under Section 2(68) of the GST Act, 2017.

> As per office records, no proceeding is pending or decided in their case in respect of the said issue.

4.2. The Applicant’s jurisdictional State Authority has not submitted any remarks and hence it is presumed that there are no pending proceedings in the Applicant’s case on the issue raised in the application.

5.1. After the consent of the Applicant, a personal hearing was fixed on 02.11.2023. The Applicant requested for adjournment of the PH. Hence another Personal hearing was fixed on 30.11.2023. However, the Applicant did not attend the personal hearing but submitted a letter dated 15.12.2023, wherein it was stated that they intend to withdraw the Advance Ruling Application filed by them on 25.11.2022, as the business with respect to which Advance ruling was sought is no more in running state and they do not require a ruling in that matter. They requested that their advance ruling application may be disposed off accordingly.


6. After due consideration, we take on record, the letter dated 15.12.2023 of the Applicant wherein they have stated that they have decided to withdraw the ARA application filed by them. As the Applicant has requested for withdrawal of their Advance Ruling Application, their request is considered and the application is treated as withdrawn without going into the merits or detailed facts of the case.

In view of the above, we rule as under:


The ARA Application Sl.No.59/2022/ARA dated 30.11.2022 filed by the Applicant seeking Advance Ruling is disposed as withdrawn as per the request of the Applicant.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
April 2024