Page 185 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : WOODKRAFT INDIA LIMITED 111
[Order]. - Proceedings : The present application has been filed under Sec-
tion 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and
MGST Act”) by M/s. WOODKRAFT INDIA LIMITED, the applicant, seeking an
advance ruling in respect of the following questions :
(1) Whether in the facts & circumstances of case, applicant is liable to
pay GST in respect of Tax Invoice No. 01, dated 25-6-2018/R.A. Bill
No. 22 for Rs. 2,42,09,594/-, toward civil and interior work done of
M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. under provision CGST
Act.
(2) If the ruling on above question is affirmative, kindly clarify rate of
tax applicable thereon.
(3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, applicant is liable to
pay GST on proposed reimbursement of Rs. 1,92,50,247/- from M/s.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., toward operational site ex-
penses and claim toward rectification of water damages, pertaining
to original civil & interior work contract awarded by M/s. Oil &
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
(4) If the ruling on above question is affirmative, kindly clarify rate of
tax applicable thereon.
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST
Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, un-
less a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the
CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the MGST
Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, a
reference to “GST Act” would means CGST Act and MGST Act.
2. Facts and contention - As per the applicant
The submissions made by the applicant is as under :-
2.1 M/s. Woodcraft India Ltd. (Applicant) is engaged in undertaking
and execution of interior works and other works. M/s. Oil &. Natural Gas Cor-
poration Ltd. (ONGC) has, vide Order No. MR/PO/4BP/BK/52 2013, dated 1-
10-2013 awarded contract of civil & interior works of Green Building, Plot No. C-
69, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051, to the applicant for value of
Rs. 57,45,18,007/- which was further revised to Rs. 60,74,89,569/- and period of
completion of work was 6 months & 6 days from notification of award. Since
work could not be completed within stipulated period, period was extended up
to 31-1-2016, with application of liquidated damages clause.
2.2 Thereafter, Applicant issued R.A. Bill No. 22 and issued corre-
sponding Tax Invoice No. 001 on 25-6-2018 for Rs. 2,42,09,594/- and charged
thereon CGST & MGST @ 9% at Rs. 21,78,863/- & Rs. 21,78,863/- respectively,
with total amount of Rs. 2,85,67,321/-. ONGC made payment on 3-7-2018 but
disputed the collection of CGST & MGST. Applicant accounted the said tax in-
voice in the books of accounts, paid CGST & MGST and accordingly filed the
return for the month of June, 2018.
2.3 After issue of impugned final R.A. Bill No. 22, question arose as to,
for whose default/breach of contract, the execution of work could not be com-
pleted as agreed and had to be extended till 31-1-2016. Applicant vide letter dat-
ed 24-2-2016 raised claim for an amount of Rs. 10,11,78,725/- which was not ac-

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  185