Page 194 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

520 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. — 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.) — Relied on ...................... [Para 14]
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department
— (2008) 7 SCC 169 — Relied on .................................................................................................. [Para 14]
Econ Antri Ltd. v. Rom Industries Ltd. — (2014) 11 SCC 769 — Referred ..................................... [Para 7.2]
Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................... [Para 13]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri M. Sidramappa, Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Urban Division and Eswarappa G.B.,
Consultant, for the Assessee.
[Order]. - Proceedings : At the outset we would like to make it clear that
the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 are in pari materia and have
the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few spe-
cific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimi-
lar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the cor-
responding similar provisions in the KGST Act.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017) by The Dep-
uty Conservator of Forests, Bangalore Urban Division, Department of Forest,
Government of Karnataka, Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Banga-
lore-560003 (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) against the Advance Ruling
No. KAR/ADRG 20/2019, dated 26-8-2019 [2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 252 (A.A.R. -
GST)].
Brief facts of the case :
3. The appellant is a Government Department (Karnataka Forest De-
partment) and under its sovereign functions, raises “plants” of tree species,
plants them in forest, waste and common lands. Over time, with the nurturing
and management of the Department, these plants grow up to become trees when
they are harvested to yield timber, poles, billets, firewood, pulpwood, etc which
are raw material for carpentry, fuel and fibre industries.
4. The task of harvesting these trees which grew from plants planted by
the Department is given to Government Corporations. The Corporations fell the
trees, convert them into timber, firewood, poles, etc so that they become market-
able for the primary market, load and transport the marketable timber, firewood,
etc by vehicles, unload and stack the marketable timber, firewood, etc in gov-
ernment timber depots. All these operations done by the Corporation is termed
as “logging” for which charges are paid by the Appellant to the Corporations.
The Appellant submitted an application dated 2-3-2018 seeking advance ruling
on the following issues :-
Issue No. 1
“(A) Is it legally correct to infer that the entire service of “logging” and
its components described before do not attract GST under the CGST
Act, 2017? If not, what is the correct position by law?
(B) In case the trees have grown from “plants” not planted by the Kar-
nataka Forest Department, but that which grew by natural regener-
ation but were nurtured, managed and protected by the Karnataka

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  314