Page 228 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

474 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
The Appellant charges local transportation from the PGCIL as per the
terms of the Service Contract. However, since the consignment note is already
issued by the transporters engaged by the Appellant, no subsequent additional
consignment note is issued by the Appellant.
With respect to the local transportation charges recovered by the Appel-
lant under the aforesaid contract from the PGCIL without issuance of a consign-
ment note, the Appellant sought the Advance Ruling under Section 97(2) of Cen-
tral Goods & Services [Tax] Act, 2017 as amended (‘CGST Act’) and the Maha-
rashtra Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 as amended (‘SGST Act’), on the applica-
bility of tax exemption as provided under Serial No. 18 of the Notification No.
12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 28th June, 2017.
28. In terms of Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax
(Rate), dated 28 June, 2017, an exemption from Central GST has been provided
for services by way of transportation of goods. The relevant extract of the notifi-
cation is given below :

Sr. Chapter, Section, Description of Services Rate Con-
No. Heading, Group (per dition
or Service Code cent)
(Tariff)
18 Heading 9965 Services by way of transportation NIL NIL
of goods -
c. by road except the services
of -
iii. a goods transportation
agency;
iv. a courier agency;
d. by inland waterways

Applicant submitted before the Advance Ruling Authority that an exemption
from payment of GST has been provided for services by way of transportation of
goods by road other than services of GTA and a courier agency in terms of the
said notification. Applicant in support of his exemption claim has strongly relied
on the fact that he has not issued consignment notes to the service recipient and
thus not a GTA as defined in the said notification.
Applicant also submitted that support taken by the Advance Ruling Au-
thority of Advance Rulings of other States are not binding and Contract under
consideration is not a works contract as it does not result in an immoveable
property. The applicant has separate contracts for supply of goods and services
and cross fall breach clause in the two contracts does not alter the nature of con-
tracts to composite supply. Applicant supported his above contention by various
judgment & documents which are reproduced in the first part of this order under
the heading “Grounds of appeal”.
Order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority
29. Advance ruling was issued by the advance ruling authority where-
in both the questions put forth by the Appellant regarding the applicability of
Exemption Notifications under MGST Act & CGST Act were answered in nega-
tive. In order to reach such conclusions, the Ld. Members, AAR observed as fol-
lows :

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  228