Page 191 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : WOODKRAFT INDIA LIMITED 117
Section 142(11)(b) - notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, no tax
shall be payable on services under this Act to the extent the lax was leviable on the said
services under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994;
1 5.5 We observe that Section 142(10) allows the levy tax on goods or
services under GST Act, that are supplied only after appointed day i.e. 1-7-2017.
In respect of RA Bill No. 22, (issue in the first two questions raised by the appli-
cant), the applicant has carried out and completed the total work before the ap-
pointed day and only billing is done after the appointed day and that too after a
two year period. The applicant relies on the provisions of time of supply under
Section 13 of GST Act. However, even as per the provisions under Section
13(2)(b) of GST Act, time of supply will be date of provision of service, if the in-
voice is not issued within the prescribed period. So this is not the activity being
undertaken or proposed to be undertaken after the appointed day.
5.6 Further, the applicant has referred to the provisions under Section
142(2)(a) and submitted that the provisions under this Section allows the appli-
cant to raise question on above issue under advance ruling provisions under the
GST Act. Therefore, we have referred the provision under this Section. The pro-
visions under this section provides for the treatment to be given under GST Act
in case of upward revision of prices and levy of tax thereon. The applicant has
completed its work upto 31-1-2016 and raised the tax invoice on 25-6-2018. This
tax invoice is in respect of the work done by him in pre-GST period. The amount
charged in the invoice is in respect of work done as per the prices originally
agreed upon in pre-GST period. Thus, there is no upward revision of any prices,
as claimed by applicant. The contention of applicant is therefore not accepted.
Thus, questions posed by applicant at Sr. No. (a) & (b) are non-maintainable un-
der the provision of Section 95 of the GST Act.
1 5.5 The second question raised by the applicant is to clarify the rate of
GST if the ruling on question No. 1 is in the affirmative.
5.5.1 Since the question No. 1 is out of the purview of this Authority,
we do not take up the second question for discussion at all and would not an-
swer the same.
5.6 Now, we discuss the subsequent questions at Sr. No. (3) and (4). The ques-
tions are as follows.
(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 expenses and
claim toward rectification of water damages, pertaining original civil &
interior work contract awarded by ONGC.
(4) If ruling on above question is affirmative kindly clarify rule of tax
applicable thereon.
5.6.1 The applicant submitted that, the work allotted by the ONGC was
not completed within stipulated time and therefore, the period of completion of
work had to be extended by around six months. This has led to the additional
claim of operational site expenses and claim toward rectification of water dam-
ages. The applicant and the ONGC had a dispute on this additional claim and
therefore, an Outside Expert Committee was appointed. This committee had
gone into details of the facts and approved the additional claim of applicant to
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  191