Case Law Details
Case Name : In re Greater Visakhapatnam Smart City Corporation Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh)
Appeal Number : AAR No. 06/AP/GST/2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/05/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
AAR Andhra Pradesh Advance Rulings
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
In re Greater Visakhapatnam Smart City Corporation Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh)
The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) of Andhra Pradesh issued a ruling regarding the GST implications on the supply of treated water by Greater Visakhapatnam Smart City Corporation Limited (GVSCCL) to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limite
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Dear, I have been regularly going through the selected postings on Taxguru, and appreciate the same. Here is my small feedback on this post:
1. It has been stated in the review that “Based on their analysis, the AAR concluded that:
GST is applicable on the supply of sewerage water treated by GVSCCL and the subsequent supply of treated water to industries.
The applicable GST rate for such supply is 9%, as per Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017.”
2. However, the ruling is otherwise.
“RULING
(Under Section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
Question: Whether GST applicable on the Sewerage water treated by GVSCCL and supply of Treated Water to various industries by GVSCCL?
Answer : The impugned goods i.e water , subject to the specification and utility submitted by the tax payer falls under Sr. No. 99 of Notification No. 02/2017-C.T. (R) dated 28.06.2017
Question: If yes, the rate of Tax applicable
Answer : The rate of tax NIL as per Notification No. 02/2017-C.T. (R) dated 28.06.2017 Subject from amended time to time”
I am not able to clearly understand your review. There appears to be some contradiction, may please see.
Regards,
Yash Paul Bhola
[email protected]
Dear Sir,
All confusion is because ruling in last para says “In view of the above discussions, we agree with views of applicant and hold that the impugned goods, called as “Sewerage Treated Water”, is purified water.”
In this ruling should have said that “Sewerage Treated Water”, is not purified water.
As applicant has argued that Sewerage Treated Water”, is not purified water.
We have made changes now by interpreting that this mistake was unintentional on the part of AAR