Page 221 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : SIEMENS LTD. 467
2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 467 (App. A.A.R. - GST - Mah.)

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
UNDER GST, MAHARASHTRA
Smt. Sungita Sharma and Shri Rajiv Jalota, Members
IN RE : SIEMENS LTD.

Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/4/2019-20, dated 23-8-2019 in Appeal
No. MAH/GST-AAAR-4/2019-20
1
Composite supply - Works contract - Joint Venture responsible to en-
sure execution of all the six contracts to achieve successful completion not-
withstanding the award of work under six separate contracts and notwith-
standing the break-up of the Contract Price - Contract being, at all times, cov-
ered by cross fall breach clause, i.e., any breach in any part of the Contract
shall be treated as a breach of the entire contract, the two contracts for supply
of goods and supply of services are inextricably linked together - From the
terms of the contract it is crystal clear that contract of transportation of goods
not to be considered in isolation but to be read along with the contract of sup-
ply of goods, performance of both of these contracts being interdependent and
naturally bundled resulting into composite supply of goods and services un-
der Section 2(30) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with single
source responsibility - Contract envisages installation, which involves civil
works to erect the structure for execution of the project in its entirety thereby
resulting in immovable property - Hence the total project assigned to appel-
lant is composite supply of works contract as envisaged under Section 2(119)
ibid and taxable @ 18% - Accordingly, transportation services provided by the
appellant being part of the whole works contract will be taxable @ 18% as
Works Contract services and will not be eligible for the exemption as provided
in Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) and Notification No.
12/2017-State Tax (Rate). [paras 39, 41, 44, 48, 53, 58]
Contract - Interpretation of - Form of agreement not important, rather
the substance has to be seen - Parties may use any words they like to suit their
intention and it is therefore imperative that agreement may not be taken as it
is but its nature/substance has to be seen to arrive at the correct conclusions.
[para 47]
Ruling in favour of department
CASES CITED
Bharathi Soap Works v. Commissioner
— 2008 (9) S.T.R. 80 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ................................................................... [Para 48]
Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer — AIR 1977 SC 1275 — Relied on .................... [Para 47]
Commissioner v. Malwa Industries Ltd.
— 2009 (235) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) — Distinguished ...................................................................... [Para 48]
Commissioner v. Solid and Correct Engineering Works
— 2010 (252) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Referred .................................................................................. [Para 51]
Dinesh Kumar Agrawal — 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 404 (A.A.R. - GST) — Referred ......................... [Paras K, 29]
Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. — Order dated 3-12-1999
of Supreme Court — Relied on ..................................................................................................... [Para 56]

________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 670 (A.A.R. - GST).
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  221