Levy of GST— The present appeal has been filed by M/s Haryana state warehousing corporation against the Advance Ruling order.
The appellant namely M/s Haryana state warehousing corporation has been incorporated under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, an Act of Parliament. The Appellant provides services of storage and warehousing of both agricultural and non-agricultural produce. The Appellant had sought Advance Ruling on the following question:
“Whether lien or mortgage charges and stock transfer fees received by the applicant from the service receiver are taxable under Section 9 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 9 of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or exempt under Section 11 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 11 of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with respect to both agricultural and non-agricultural produce stored and, warehoused in the warehouses of the applicant?”
Pleadings of the Appellant:
1. That the Advance Ruling is patently against law, unjust, erroneously passed without any application of mind.
2. That on the facts of the case and law, AAR has erred in holding that Stock transfer fees and lien/mortgage charges are not warehousing services.
3. That AAR has failed to differentiate between storage and warehousing services.
4. That AAR has not taken into consideration rules of interpretation as per the General Clauses Act.
5. That AAR has not taken into consideration all the arguments given by the Appellant.
The contention of the Appellant that all the services provided by the warehouse owner qualify as warehousing services is not tenable as the Appellant has tried to expand the scope of warehouse services as mentioned in entry 54 of the of the Notification No. 47/ST-2, dated 30th June, 2017 of the Haryana Government Excise and Taxation Department. The argument of the appellant regarding storage and warehousing services explained in circular F.No. B/11/1/2002-TRU, dated 01.08.2002 issued by Central Government includes the lien and storage charges as contended by the Appellant, does not hold water at all.
Therefore, even if a warehouse operator is not issuing any negotiable warehouse receipts and is not registered under the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2007, the other services provided by him (i.e. other than lien or mortgage charges and stock transfer fees) shall qualify as warehousing services. Therefore, for any service to qualify as warehousing services it is not imperative that negotiable warehousing receipts must have been issued for them.
Held that— The lien or mortgage charges and stock transfer fees received by the applicant from the service receiver are taxable under Section 9 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 9 of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and do not fall in exemption category as provided in entry no, 54 of the Notification dated 30th June, 2017 of the Haryana Government Excise and Taxation Department.
This authority has no hesitation in dismissing the appeal and the Advance Rulingdoes not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is upheld.