Page 239 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : SIEMENS LTD. 485
terms/conditions which are expressly outlined in the contract gov-
erning contract price, scope of work, lead partner, other partners,
joint ventures, performance securities, bank guarantees, price com-
ponents, pricing mechanism, raising of invoices, time period for
completion of services, duration of the contract, etc. As exclusive
clauses and conditions are clearly outlined in the Third and Fifth
Contract respectively, the two contracts are separate and distinct in
nature. The Third Contract contains terms governing supply of
goods and the Fifth Contract contains terms governing supply of
services.
Further, given that the transaction with the PGCIL is on ex-works basis
where the ownership in the goods is transferred at the premises of the
Appellant, it can be said that the Fifth Contract would commence only
when the ownership in the goods is transferred to the PGCIL. Therefore,
in light of the above, it is evident that each of the activities to be carried
on by the Appellant under the aforementioned two contracts are inde-
pendent and distinct. Accordingly, the two contracts cannot be regarded
as one single contract.
Both the contracts have different scope of work, separate consideration
and separate invoices. Therefore, in no circumstances, the two contracts
can be said to form one composite contract and should be treated sepa-
rately. The second contract of provision of services of transportation
should be treated separately for levy of tax and appellant has submitted
that he is purely providing the service of transportation of goods to the
PGCIL and is not issuing any consignment note. Services provided by
the Appellant are that of transportation of goods by road and not that of
GTA. Accordingly, given that the conditions specified in the Exemption
Notification are satisfied, the Appellant is eligible for exemption con-
tained in Entry No. 18 of the Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-
Central Tax (Rate), dated 29 June, 2017. In support of this appellant has
relied on no. of judgments which are reproduced in grounds of appeal.
Whole line of arguments of the appellant regarding exemption on the
transportation of service is in fact without considering the terms and ob-
ligations created under the both contracts of supply of goods and ser-
vices and is based on the theory that the supply of service contract is in
total isolation from the whole contract. Here appellant is isolating trans-
portation services not only from other services envisaged under on-shore
service contract (Fifth contract) but also isolating it from whole contract
of supply of goods and services allotted to the JV in which appellant is
an associate. Hence here most important questions is to verify whether
the transportation services and other services provided by the appellant
are altogether separate contract independent of any obligation cast on
the appellant under the whole contract or not.
37. We have gone through the contention of appellant and also the
terms of the both contracts. After going through the terms of contracts it is seen
that though there are two contracts one for supply of goods and other for supply
of services, in fact these two contracts are not separate or independent contracts
as envisaged by the appellant but are parts of the one whole contract which are
separated by the appellant for the reason known to him. Below are the some im-
portant paras from the contract which clearly throw light on the nature of the
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  239