Page 226 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

472 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
the ‘cross fall breach clause’, settles unambiguously that sup-
ply of goods, their transportation to the contractee’s site de-
livery and related services are not separate contracts, but only
form parts of an indivisible composite works contract supply,
as defined under Section 2(119) of the GST Act, with single
source responsibility.
(viii) That the composite nature of the contract is clear from the
facts that first Contract cannot be performed satisfactorily un-
less the goods have been transported and delivered to the
contractee’s site. The two contracts for supply of the goods
and allied services are not separately enforceable. The recipi-
ent has not contracted for ex-factory supply of material, but
for the composite supply, namely Works Contract for Supply
for VSC based HVDC Terminal and DC XLPE Cable System.
Reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble SC in case of M/s.
Indure Ltd. v. CTO in Order dated 20-9-2010 in C.A. No. 1123
of 2003.
(ix) Placing reliance on AAR Order No. GST-ARA-36/2017-18/
B-43, dated 4-6-2018 in case of Shri Dinesh Kumar Agarwal
[2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 404 (A.A.R. - GST)], it is held that the first
and second contracts have cross fall breach clause and thus,
are in nature of ‘Composite Supply of Works Contract’, there-
fore should be taxable @ 18%.
(x) Aggrieved by the order of Maharashtra Authority for Ad-
vance ruling, appellant wish to file an appeal with The Maha-
rashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and
Services Tax in terms of Rule 106(1), Central Goods and Ser-
vice Tax Rules, 2017. However, appellant would like to state
that, it could not submit the appeal application online as the
status of order is not yet updated on GST portal and hence is
filing the application manually with your good office.
1 to 23. * * * * * *
[See text of paras 1 to 23 of this order in GST Council website.]
Hearing
A personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 14-8-2019, wherein
Shri Vikash Garg and Shri Mahesh Parnerkar, Chief Manager (Indirect Taxation)
appeared on behalf of the Appellant, and reiterated their earlier written submis-
sions, which were made at the time of filing of this appeal and also filed addi-
tional submissions (supra) at the time of the personal hearing. On behalf of the
Respondent Shri Kamlesh Nagare, Dy. Commissioner, State Tax appeared and
reiterated the same submissions, which they have made before the Advance Rul-
ing Authority. Copy of the additional submission was enclosed to the appeal.
Both the submissions of the appellant are kept on record.
Facts of the case
24. We have gone through the facts of the case, oral and written sub-
missions made by the Appellant as well as by the jurisdictional officer and the
applicable provisions of the GST laws in this regard.
25. M/s. Siemens Limited (hereinafter referred as the ‘Appellant’) is

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  226