Page 164 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

98 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
pleted 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 undertaken or
proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and not already completed at the
time of filing of the application. It has been further submitted that invoicing in
relation to the said work done has been done separately for goods and services
and GST has been paid accordingly.
5.7.1 We do not agree with this submissions for rejection of the applica-
tion made by the jurisdictional officer because we observed that the maintenance
work is ongoing and is a part of the subject agreement.
5.8 The jurisdictional officer has also submitted that, in the event the
application is not rejected, 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 and
in the subject case, 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 classifi-
able under “Works Contract”.
5.8.1 We agree with these submissions of the jurisdictional officer and
for reasons mentioned in the aforesaid paras we hold that the supply of goods
and service by the applicant to Cray Inc. (Cray) does not qualify as ‘works con-
tract’ as defined under Section 2(19) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (CGST Act)?
5.9 The decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra in
case of [NR Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.], as cited by the jurisdictional officer, is not
applicable in the subject case because the facts of both the matters are totally dif-
ferent.
5.10 The jurisdictional officer has 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
machine/instruments/equipment and are all replaceable and hence cannot be
said to be of ‘immovable’ nature. We agree with this observation made by the
jurisdictional officer.
6. In view of the above discussions, we pass an order as follows :
ORDER
7. For reasons as discussed in the body of the order, the questions are
answered thus -
Question :- Whether supply of goods and service by Prasa Infocom &
Power Solutions Private Limited to Cray Inc. (Cray) quali-
fy as ‘works contract’ as defined under Section 2(19) of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)?
Answer :- Answered in the negative.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  180