Page 159 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : PRASA INFOCOM & POWER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 93
dertaken is to provide an end-to-end solution to Cray which is nothing but per-
formance of works contract service.
2.8 Applicant has submitted that as per Section 2(119) of the CGST Act,
performance of works contract must be in relation to an ‘immovable property’.
Since the term ‘immovable property’ has not been defined under CGST Act the
applicant, has cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
T.T.G. Industries Limited v. CCE, (2004) 4 SCC 751 = 2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.) as
well as the decision of the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling in Fermi
Solar Farms Private Limited, 2018 VIL 14 AAR = 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 35 (A.A.R. -
GST), in support of their contention that. Applicant is supplying goods and ser-
vices which is resulting in setting up of a Data Center, which cannot be shifted to
another location without first dismantling and then re-erecting it at another site
and hence, Data Center shall be treated as an immovable property under the
CGST Act and the transaction, as a whole, shall be regarded as supply of ‘works
contract’. Applicant has also referred to various online web sources to explain
the structure and design of a data center reference and submitted that essentially,
a data center is referred to as an immovable structure with various security and
temperature control features housing enormous servers which cannot be moved
or shifted.
2.9 In view of above, applicant has submitted that it is supplying goods
and services which are in the nature of works contract service as the supply not
only involves supply of goods but also installation, fitting out, repair, mainte-
nance of an immovable property i.e. Data Center. Such activities fall under the
ambit of works contract under CGST Act, hence all supplies under Contract
should be subject to GST at the rate of 18%.
3. Contention - As per the jurisdictional officer :
The submissions made by the jurisdictional officer are as under :-
3.1 Applicant under letter dated 8-11-2019 has intimated that the works
with respect to construction and commissioning of the service in relation to the
said contract has been completed, and further, invoicing in relation to the said
work done has been done separately for goods and services and GST has been
paid accordingly. Thus, in the instant case, the supply of goods and service is
already completed and therefore their application is liable for rejection, because
in advance ruling, as per the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, only
those cases are eligible where the supply of goods or services or both being un-
dertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and not already com-
pleted at the time of filing of the application.
3.2 From the definition of Works Contract under the GST Laws, it is
clear that works contract is applicable only in immovable properties for GST
purpose and where the value of goods and services are not distinct. Perusal of
the copy of agreement/documents submitted by the applicant reveal that the
value of goods/equipment is clearly distinct and separated from the value of
services. Therefore, their project/work is not classifiable under “Works Con-
tract”. The same view has also been taken by Hon’ble Authority for Advance
Ruling, Maharashtra in case of [NR Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.] (GST-ARA
83/2018-18/B-03), dated 8-1-2019 [2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 280 (A.A.R. - GST)] which is
squarely applicable to this case as this project is also a “Turn Key Project” as

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  175