Advance Ruling Application Not Filed by Supplier: AAR Rejects Application [Read Order]
Advance Ruling Application – Supplier – AAR Rejects Application – Authority for Advance Ruling – AAR – Application – Advance Ruling – taxscan
Advance Ruling Application – Supplier – AAR Rejects Application – Authority for Advance Ruling – AAR – Application – Advance Ruling – taxscan
The Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has rejected the application as the advance ruling application was not filed by the supplier.
The applicant Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation (UPMRC) was engaged in erection, commissioning, and construction of metro rail facility in Kanpur Uttar Pradesh. During construction, sometimes it was necessary to divert the transmission lines and other electrical equipment like electrical poles and transformers for various safety reasons.
For this, UPMRC had to place a request to the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, a Government of UP undertaking, local electricity distribution licensee in Kanpur (Urban) (KESCO). KESCO was engaged in distribution of electricity in the area of Kanpur (Urban).
In the context of the electricity regulatory scheme governed by the Electricity Act, 2003 "utility shifting" was referred to as "deposit work". Any asset created during execution of deposit work is under ownership of transmission or distribution company by virtue of operation of provisions and for regulatory requirement of Electricity Act, 2003. For the purposes of this application terms "utility shifting" and "deposit work" had been used interchangeably.
The applicant has sought advance ruling as to whether the services supplied by the KESCO by way of utility shifting were integral part of services supplied by KESCO by way of distribution of electricity or not.
Pankaj Kumar Shukla, on behalf of the applicant submitted that, the services supplied by KESCO by way of utility shifting was integral part of main services supplied by KESCO by way of distribution of electricity which was exempted under Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
Being so, he contended that the supplies made by way of executing deposit work including supervisions services were also covered under entry 25 of the Exemption Notification. In this context he submitted that the GST charged by the KESCO on supply of supervision services was not correct.
The Authority of Rajendra Kumar (Member (Central Tax)) and Harilal Prajapati (Member (State Tax)) observed that, applicant Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited was receiver of the Goods/Services provided by the KESCO. In light of point (a) provided under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only suppliers of the services could file Application for Advance Ruling.
In this case the supplier of service was KESCO. Accordingly, the authority held that ruling could not be given as the applicant had not fallen under the definition of Advance Ruling.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
