Page 160 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

94 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
claimed by the applicant. Further it is submitted that on going through the list of
goods and services, it is seen that items at Sr. No. 2 to 17 are in nature of ma-
chine/instruments/equipment and are all replaceable and hence cannot be said
to be of ‘immovable’ nature.
3.3 Further, with respect to the claim of applicant that subject supply is
classifiable under Chapter 9954 (Construction Services) and falls under descrip-
tion of services - (ii) Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause
(119) of Section 2 of CGST Act, 2017 it is to submit that only those supply are
classifiable under Chapter 9954 which are mainly related to the construction ser-
vice. In this case, it is found that there is a construction of a room to fit/install the
equipment/machinery/other various apparatus and the value of construction is
not significant, as compared to the value of such equipment/machinery/
apparatus. The major portion in this project is of fitting/installation of equip-
ment/Machinery/other various apparatus. It is also submitted that since their
work/project does not qualify under the definition of works Contract, the benefit
of Notification No. 8/2017-I.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 is not available to them.
Further, it is to say that vide Notification No. 3/2019-I.T. (Rate), dated 29-3-2019,
the item (ii) of S. No. 3 which relates to “works contract” is omitted.
3.4 Hence it is requested to reject the claim of applicant classifying the
said project/work under as “works Contract” as defined under Section 2(119) of
CGST Act, 2017.
4. Hearing
Preliminary hearing in the matter was held on 14-11-2019. Shri Onkar
Sharma, Advocate & Authorized Representative appeared and requested for
admission of their application. Jurisdictional Officer Shri Shailendra Nath, Super-
intendent, Range-III, Division-IV, (Kothrud), Pune-II Commissionerate also ap-
peared and requested for time to make submissions.
The application was admitted and called for final hearing on 22-1-2020.
Shri Onkar Sharma, Advocate & Authorized Representative appeared made oral
and written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer Shri Shailendra Nath, Superin-
tendent, Range-III, Division-IV, (Kothrud), Pune-II Commissionerate also ap-
peared and made submissions. We heard both the sides.
5. Discussions and findings :
5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case, documents on record
and oral and written contentions made by both, the applicant as well as the ju-
risdictional officer. The question before us is whether supply of goods and ser-
vices by the applicant to M/s. Cray Inc. (Cray) qualify as ‘works contract’ as de-
fined under Section 2(19) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST
Act)?
5.2 M/s. Cray Inc. (‘Cray’) has entered into a ‘Services and Development
Agreement’ with the Applicant on 4-4-2017 wherein the applicant, acting as an
independent contractor, and not as an agent of Cray, shall furnish personnel and
services pursuant to the terms and conditions mentioned under Article Nos. I to
XXX of the said agreement.
5.2.1 The ‘scope of services’ as per Article I of the impugned agreement
states that both the parties may enter into mutually agreed upon written orders
for services and products to be fulfilled by the applicant as per Cray’s require-
ments with each written order to be called as “Statement Of Work”.

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  176