Page 127 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : SRI SATYA SAI WATER SUPPLY PROJECT BOARD 341
(i) there is uninterrupted power supply,
(ii) material/spares would be supplied as and when necessary. Thus,
the contractor has been providing pure services of operation and
maintenance of the plant, as there is no supply of material during
the process.
It is submitted that under the Finance Act, 1994, in the pre-negative list regime,
the activity of providing operation and maintenance services by the contractor to
the applicant were chargeable to service tax, and was duly remitted by the con-
tractor. Pursuant to the introduction of the negative list of service tax, the Appli-
cant was of the view that the service is not chargeable to tax in light of the ex-
emption provided under Entry 12 under the Mega Exemption Notification No.
25/2012, dated 20-6-2012, which is as under :
“12. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a govern-
mental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installa-
tion, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration
of -
(e) pipeline, conduit or plant for -
(i) water supply,
(ii) water treatment, or
(iii) sewerage treatment or disposal;”
The Applicant was of the considered view that it qualifies as a ‘governmental
authority’ as (i) it was constituted by way of a Government Order, (ii) the majori-
ty of its Executive members consists of ex officio officers and employees of the
State Government, and (iii) it is funded majorly by the State Government.
4. Questions raised before the Authority :
(i) Whether the applicant qualifies as a ‘Governmental Authority’ un-
der the Act and whether the services availed by it are exempt from
the GST by virtue of Entry 3 in Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate),
dated 28-6-2017?
(ii) Whether the Applicant is not liable to remit any GST to its suppliers
for any services it procures by virtue of its activities of supplying
water for domestic purposes?
On Verification of basic information of the applicant, it is observed that the ap-
plicant falls under State jurisdiction, i.e. Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Anantapur-II Circle. Accordingly, the application has been forwarded to the ju-
risdictional officers and a copy marked to the central tax authorities to offer their
remarks as per the Section 98(1) of CGST/APGST Act, 2017.
In response, no remarks are received from the jurisdictional officers con-
cerned regarding whether there are any proceedings lying pending or passed
relating to the applicant on the issue, for which the Advance Ruling sought by
the applicant.
5. Applicants interpretation of law and facts :
Pursuant to introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Applicant
did not seek registration under the provisions of the CGST/APGST Act as there
are no taxable supplies being made by the Applicant. Since the introduction of
GST, various contractors who are providing services to the Applicant are charg-
ing GST in their respective bills raised on the Applicant which this applicant is
not remitting as the Applicant still continues to hold that the activities undertak-
GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  127