Page 189 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : WOODKRAFT INDIA LIMITED 115
upward price revision in the ongoing contract and outward supply to the extent
of such enhanced price and therefore, it should liable to tax under GST Act. The
applicant has not yet issued supplementary invoice or debit note, however con-
sidering mandatory time limit for issue of such invoice, will issue such invoices
within 30 days of O.E.C. report.
2.16 Applicant has completed work awarded by ONGC of mainly inte-
rior and civil work to some extent. As per explanation note to scheme of classifi-
cation of services under GST Act, it would be covered under Tariff - 995478 - oth-
er building completion and finishing services and CGST & MGST would be ap-
plicable @ 9% each.
2.17 The applicant has made further submissions on 13-2-2020 as
under :-
2.17.1 There is no doubt that the work/supply is done and executed
prior to 1-7-2017, but the Bill for deviation work is raised in GST era and as per
GST provision Section 142(2) i.e. it is an upward rate difference.
2.17.2 The amounts received/receivable by applicant amounting to
Rs. 2,85,67,320.64/- and Rs. 2,27,15,291/- are against Invoice No. 1, dated 25-6-
2018 and Tax Invoice No. 19, dated 18-6-2019 respectively. Both the bills are
raised during GST era (after 1-7-2017) though work and services are rendered
during PRE-GST era. They are approved by competent authorities, crystallised
and billed in GST era & their status cannot be reduced to anything less than price
upward revision of original civil & interior works undertaken by the applicant.
The “rate difference/price revision” has to be given proper meaning which re-
sults in increased outgo/costing from the point of view of the contract awarder
i.e. ONGC. Hence the applicant is fulfilling & complying all the conditions as
mentioned in Section 142(2) of the CGST Act.
3. Contention - As per the jurisdictional officer
The Jurisdictional Officer has not submitted any written contention in
this matter.
4. Hearing
Preliminary hearing in the matter was held on 20-11-2019, Sh. M.M.
Kanadje, G.S.T.P appeared and requested for admission of application as per de-
tails in their application. The Jurisdictional Officer Sh. Dhananjay Palande, Assis-
tant. Commissioner of State Tax (D-201) Pune-1 appeared. He has not submitted
any written contention.
5. Observations and findings
We have gone through the facts of the case and written contention of the
applicant. The questions raised by the applicant are discussed as under :-
5.1 This authority is governed by the provisions of Chapter XVII of
CGST Act and the relevant Sections 95 to 98, 102, 103, 104 and 105. As per Section
95, the term ‘advance ruling’ means a decision provided by this authority to an
applicant on matters or questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in
relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed
to be undertaken by the applicant.
5.2 Before we decide the questions raised by the applicant in this appli-
cation, it is essential that it be first determined whether or not the activities un-
dertaken by the applicant pertains to the supply of goods or services or both be-
ing undertaker or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  189