Page 131 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : JSW ENERGY LIMITED 457
Commissioner v. Indorama Textiles Ltd.
— 2010 (260) E.L.T. 382 (Bom.) — Relied on ..................................................................... [Paras 1, 2, 65]
Commissioner v. Indorama Textiles Ltd. — 2010 (260) E.L.T. A83 (S.C.) — Referred ............. [Paras 3, 65]
DCW Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (332) E.L.T. 142 (Tribunal) — Referred .......................... [Paras 20, 52]
Emcee Crown Corks Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2002 (149) E.L.T. 639 (Tribunal) — Referred .......................................................................... [Para 64]
Essar Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (129) E.L.T. 213 (Tribunal) — Referred ......................... [Para 37]
Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2006 (197) E.L.T. 97 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................................................................... [Paras 1, 65]
India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015-TIOL-1982-CESTAT-MAD — Referred ......... [Paras 20, 52]
Jakap Metind Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (356) E.L.T. 279 (Tribunal) — Referred ............ [Para 36]
Jaypee Rewa Cement v. Commissioner — 2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ........................... [Para 37]
Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Relied on ................. [Paras 17, 61]
Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. State of Odisha
— (2015) 81 VST 138 (Ori.) — Referred ....................................................................................... [Para 27]
Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Collector
— 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) — Relied on ......................................................... [Paras 25, 26, 64, 66, 67]
Sanghi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (206) E.L.T. 575 (Tribunal) — Referred ....... [Paras 1, 65]
Sanghi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (302) E.L.T. 564 (Tribunal) — Referred ....... [Paras 1, 65]
Vikram Cement v. Commissioner — 2006 (194) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred .................................... [Para 37]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST, dated 31-12-2018 .................................................... [Paras 12, 58]
[Order]. - At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provi-
sions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain
provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar
provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same
provisions under the MGST Act.
The present appeal had been filed under Section 100 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”) by M/s. JSW
Energy Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) who had preferred
appeal against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-05/2017/B-04, dated 5-3-2018.
The Maharashtra AAAR had, vide its Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-
RJ/01A/2019-20, dated 2-7-2018, disposed of the aforesaid appeal by holding as
under :
The processing undertaken by a person on the goods belonging to an-
other registered person qualifies as job work even if it amounts to manufacture
provided all the requirements under the CGST/MGST Act in this behalf, are met
with.
Further, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the trans-
action proposed to be carried out between the Appellant and M/s. JSL does not
qualify for Job Work envisaged under Section 2(68) read with Section 143 of the
CGST Act, 2017.
The AAAR in the said ruling dated 2-7-2018 had observed as under :
(i) The condition stipulated in the definition of the “Job work” provid-
ed under Section 2(68) of the CGST Act, 2017, which envisages the
presence of the two persons only, viz. the Principal and the job
worker, in any job work transaction, is not satisfied due to the inevi-
table presence of the 3rd Party i.e. MSEDCL, which happens to be
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  251