Page 156 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

482 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
the CGST Act, 2017. Further the amounts collected from SPDs
should not be treated as part of the value of any of the services ren-
dered by the applicant, as this doesn’t have any correlation with
other services rendered by the applicant.
(k) The activity of collection of amounts from SPDs towards LAD fund,
even assumed to be a supply, though not accepting the same, with-
out prejudice to the argument that the said activity is not a supply,
the nature of activities, for which the committee has decided to uti-
lize the fund, is covered under Article 243G and Article 243W of the
Constitution of India, as the said activities get covered under Sl. No.
3 or 3A of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as
amended and hence are exempted.
(l) The committee, while deciding the activities, agreed to ensure that
there should not be any duplication of work undertaken by any au-
thorities, by calling for a meeting of all stakeholders including vari-
ous Government Departments, MLAs, MPs before finalization of
the activities. This proves that the activities undertaken are either
the Municipality or Local Panchayat of the relevant areas covered in
the scheme. Therefore, even if it is held that money collected are
towards supply, the activities are covered under Notification No.
12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and hence are exempt-
ed supplies.
(m) The payments made by the applicant, at the directions of the Com-
mittee which constitutes various Governmental Authorities, out of
the amount collected towards LAD fund, if the said collection of
amount is treated as supply or otherwise, do not amount to supply
to the applicant by the Government as there is no applicability of
tax on reverse charge mechanism, in terms of Notification No.
13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.
(n) The applicant, concluding the submissions, requests for favorable
order that the amount received towards LAD fund is not against
any supply made by the applicant and also the payments trans-
ferred at the directions of the Committee is not a supply of any ser-
vice by the Government to the applicant.
7. Findings & Discussion :
7.1 We have considered the submissions made by the Applicant in their
application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made by Sri. Ganesh S.,
Advocate and duly authorised representative of the applicant during the person-
al hearing. We have also considered the issues involved, on which advance rul-
ing is sought by the applicant, and relevant facts.
7.2 At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the
CGST Act and the KGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. There-
fore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a refer-
ence to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under
the KGST Act.
7.3 The applicant claims to be a Government Company in terms of Sec-
tion 2(45) of Companies Act, 2013; acts as Solar Power Park Developer (SPPD)
and involved in creation of infrastructure to facilitate Solar Power Developers
(SPDs) to establish solar power generating units & to enable supply of solar
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  276