Page 159 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : H.P. SALES INDIA PVT. LTD. 525
supply of the remaining components and parts of the Solar
Power Plant and the supply of the services of erection, instal-
lation ‘and commissioning of the Solar Power Plant.
(b) The supply of PV module is a distinct transaction from the
supplies in contract in question as it is the owner whose re-
sponsibility it is to procure and supply the PV module. This
PV module is to be supplied as free issue material over and
above the plant being supplied by the contractor. The owner is
responsible for transportation of the PV module from the
point of origin till plant site and he bears the other risks and
rewards of ownership. The PV module which is procured by
the Project owner on High Sea Sale basis and imported by
availing Customs duty exemptions and later supplied to the
appellant as a free issue for use in the setting up of the Solar
Power Plant.
(c) The supply of the remaining portion of the contract in ques-
tion by the appellant which involves the supply of the balance
components and parts of the Solar Power Plant and the supply
of services of erection, installation and commissioning of the
Solar Power Plant is viewed as a ‘composite supply’ as the
supply of goods and services are naturally bundled.
(d) The tax liability on this portion of the contract in question
(other than PV module) which is termed as a ’composite sup-
ply’ will be determined in terms of Section 8 of the CGST Act,
2017 wherein the rate applicable to the dominant nature of the
supply will prevail.
31. The appeal is disposed of in the above manner.”
53. In both the above rulings, it is held that the elements of the contract
are supplied together and therefore qualify as a “Composite Supply”. Similarly,
even for the Appellants, as all the elements are inter-dependent, they should
qualify as a Composite Supply.
Accordingly based on the above submission and the submission already
made at the time of filing of appeal, the impugned supply should qualify as
composite supply with the principal supply being Electro Ink.
Discussion and findings
54. Having agreed upon to the Appellant’s contention with regard to
the non-consideration of the additional submissions dated 11-2-2019 in the im-
pugned AAAR Order dated 17-2-2019, leading to the apparent error on the face
of the record, and warranting the invocation of Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017
for the rectification of the error in the impugned AAAR order, we perused the
additional submission dated 11-2-2019 made by the Appellant, vide which they
had supplemented their contention made in the grounds of appeal, by way of
further clarification in respect of the transactions carried out by them in terms of
the agreement entered with their customers, and exhibition of various evidences
in the form of the certificates, declaration, documents, records relied upon them
to vindicate their claim.
55. Before setting out to discuss the merits of contention made in the
additional submissions under consideration, we would like to recapitulate the
findings of the impugned AAAR order.
56. In the impugned AAAR order, it was held that the supply of the
Electroink along with the other consumables comprising of blanket, photo imag-
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  159