1. Home

SGST AAAR

GST – Tamil Nadu AAAR - Recipient of services, Waste management service supplied by sub-contractor, service provided by JV - Classification of supply of services relating to waste collection, segregation, treatment, transportation and disposal services under service agreements entered with concessionaries - Eligibility to exempted from GST in terms of entry no.3 of the Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 – HELD – the purpose of exemption notification unless specifically provided, cannot be extended to sub-contractors automatically on par with main contractors - The appellant are suppliers to their own JV partners and not to Greater Chennai Corporation - as per the definition under Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, the recipient of appellant’s services is their own JV partners - The very wording of the exemption is ‘provided to’ something legally provided to a recipient and not as a beneficiary. In the present case, GCC is only the beneficiary – Appellant is a totally different entity than from concessionaires in as much as they are all separately incorporated and separately registered with GST and they are distinct persons as per GST Act - on the basis of holding equity, appellant cannot claim to be on par with the concessionaire, who otherwise too are ineligible for the exemption, being the provider of composite supply of goods and services to GCC anyway – the order of the Advance Ruling Authority is upheld and appeal is dismissed - When the bid for services to GCC is directly with the appellant and the services are to be done by the appellant to GCC, why appellant entered into agreement with concessionaire, who has been promoted by the appellant itself, though out of question here, appears somewhat strange. However, the answer lies in the fact that the very nature of concessionaire agreement / bid with GCC involves supply of bins, construction of sheds, vehicles, mechanical sweepers, etc., along with other goods and services; therefore, the appellant who only won the bid and should have performed the activities directly to the GCC, floated two concessionaires who will procure the goods and supply to the appellant, who in turn will provide the services, so as to be termed to be ‘pure services’ allegedly to enable them qualify themselves under the exemption notification. This artificial separation of activities to be performed wholly by the successful bidders and to be provided to the GCC, is a colourable device to avail the exemption under GST and legally and factually not tenable
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Income Tax Deductors/Collectors...
CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?