This authority is unable to answer the question on account of insufficient information provided by the applicant.
Advance Ruling— In the instant case, the applicant i.e. Madhya pradesh power generating co. ltd. has issued various work orders for construction, erection, commissioning, maintenance, installation, repair, renovation, alteration etc. of its power houses.
Question raised for advance ruling authority is as follows—
1. Whether all such contracts towards construction, O&M and other ancillary contracts which are in relation to work entrusted to MPPGCL by the State Government are to be taxed as composite supply as per Schedule II of CGST Act 2017 or as individual supply as ordered in case of M/s Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd by Honourable Authority of Advance Ruling?
2. GST Rate applicable on Construction contracts awarded by MPPGCL which are in relation to work entrusted to MPPGCL by the State Government as per Notification No. 11/2017 CT(R) as amended?
3. GST Rate applicable on O&M and other ancillary contracts awarded by MPPGCL which are in relation to work entrusted to MPPGCL by the State Government as per Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) as amended?
The question asked in the instant case refers to “all such contracts towards construction, O&M and other ancillary contracts” and therefore is not in respect of a specific transaction enabling us to answer the question. The question should be on a specific contract with a clear set of facts whose legal implications may be interpreted and answered in an Advance Ruling.
An Advance Ruling may have persuasive value but cannot be a binding precedent on account of its limited applicability by virtue of Section 103 of the Act, which states that an advance ruling pronounced by the Authority or the Appellate Authority shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of section 97 for advance ruling and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Thus an Advance Ruling in respect of a transaction pronounced in a state is not binding on the same transaction undertaken by the same applicant in another state.
Held that— In respect of first question, regarding classification of supply in Entry No. 6 of Schedule II to the GST Act, this authority is unable to answer the question on account of insufficient information provided by the applicant.
In respect of the second and third question regarding the rate of GST on supplies made under different contracts, in absence of the copies of the contracts this authority is unable to give any ruling.
This authority is unable to answer the question on account of insufficient information provided by the applicant.
Advance Ruling— In the instant case, the applicant i.e. Madhya pradesh power generating co. ltd. has issued various work orders for construction, erection, commissioning, maintenance, installation, repair, renovation, alteration etc. of its power houses.
Question raised for advance ruling authority is as follows—
1. Whether all such contracts towards construction, O&M and other ancillary contracts which are in relation to work entrusted to MPPGCL by the State Government are to be taxed as composite supply as per Schedule II of CGST Act 2017 or as individual supply as ordered in case of M/s Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd by Honourable Authority of Advance Ruling?
2. GST Rate applicable on Construction contracts awarded by MPPGCL which are in relation to work entrusted to MPPGCL by the State Government as per Notification No. 11/2017 CT(R) as amended?
3. GST Rate applicable on O&M and other ancillary contracts awarded by MPPGCL which are in relation to work entrusted to MPPGCL by the State Government as per Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) as amended?
The question asked in the instant case refers to “all such contracts towards construction, O&M and other ancillary contracts” and therefore is not in respect of a specific transaction enabling us to answer the question. The question should be on a specific contract with a clear set of facts whose legal implications may be interpreted and answered in an Advance Ruling.
An Advance Ruling may have persuasive value but cannot be a binding precedent on account of its limited applicability by virtue of Section 103 of the Act, which states that an advance ruling pronounced by the Authority or the Appellate Authority shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of section 97 for advance ruling and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Thus an Advance Ruling in respect of a transaction pronounced in a state is not binding on the same transaction undertaken by the same applicant in another state.
Held that— In respect of first question, regarding classification of supply in Entry No. 6 of Schedule II to the GST Act, this authority is unable to answer the question on account of insufficient information provided by the applicant.
In respect of the second and third question regarding the rate of GST on supplies made under different contracts, in absence of the copies of the contracts this authority is unable to give any ruling.