Page 192 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

118 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
the extent of Rs. 1,92,50,247/. This claim is over and above the cost agreed in the
contract for the sanctioned work.
5.6.2 In this situation also, Applicant has contended that, the said in-
voice is pertaining to upward revision in price and therefore in view of Section
142(2)(a) of CGST Act, it is outward supply under GST law and liable to tax un-
der CGST & MGST Act.
5.6.3 The documents submitted by the applicant as well as the oral
submissions made, do not show that the said invoice has been raised in pursu-
ance of increase in contract value. Further, from the submissions made by the
applicant we find that in respect of additional claim of Rs. 1,92,50,247/-, the ser-
vices of site expenses & rectification of water damages was undertaken by the
applicant and completed during the service tax regime. These services of site ex-
penses & rectification of water damages are in the nature of additional work en-
trusted to the applicant, claim against which was disputed by ONGC and on
mediation by the O.E.C., the said amount has been said to be payable to the ap-
plicant. This amount does not appear to be paid to the applicant in lieu of in-
crease in the value of the original contract. In fact, payment of this amount was
being contested by ONGC only because they thought that the said damages had
occurred during the course of performance of the contract by the applicant which
was to be rectified by way of providing services of site expenses & rectification of
water damages. Thus, we find that the amount of Rs. 1,92,50,247/- is nothing but
payment to the applicant against services, rendered during the erstwhile service
tax regime. Thus we find that even in the subject case where the invoice is not
issued by the applicant, the work was already undertaken and completed well
before the GST regime. Hence even in this case the activities undertaken by the
applicant, does not pertain to the supply of goods or services or both being un-
dertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant as per the provisions of
Section 95 of the GST Act. Hence we find that this authority cannot answer ques-
tion No. 3 also.
6. In view of the extensive deliberations as held hereinabove, we pass
an order as follows :
ORDER
7. For reasons as discussed in the body of the order, the questions are
answered thus -
Question 1 :- Whether in the facts & circumstances of case, applicant
is liable to pay GST in respect of Tax Invoice No. 01, dat-
ed 25-6-2018 / R.A. bill No. 22 for Rs. 2,42,09,594/- to-
ward civil and interior work done of M/s. Oil & Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. under provision GST Act.
- The question is non-maintainable, in view of the discussions
made above.
Question 2 :- If ruling on above question is affirmative kindly be clari-
fied rate of tax applicable thereon.
- The question is non-maintainable, in view of the discussions
made above.
Question 3 :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of case an appli-
cant is liable to pay GST on proposed reimbursement of
Rs. 1,92,50,247/ from M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corpora-

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  192