Advance Ruling- In the instant case, the applicant (M/s. Surat Smart City Development) has submitted that it had awarded a Comprehensive Contract to NEC technology India Pvt. Ltd. for design, development, implementation, maintenance and management of open loop solution based Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) System for Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) and City Bus Operation in Surat City. 

Question on which Advance Ruling sought?

1. Whether the supply made by NEC under the AFC project would qualify as a:

(a) ‘Works Contract’ as defined under Section 2 (119) of the CGST, 2017; or

(b) “Composite Supply” as defined under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017;

2. Whether the supply made by NEC under the AFC project would qualify as an original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession, thereby attracting GST rate of 12% provided in the Not. No. 24/2017-CT (Rate) dtd. 21-9-17.

3. Whether the classification of supply made by NEC would fall under 8470 or SAC 9954?

4. Whether the maintenance and management services post service would qualify as Composite Supply as defined under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017? Further, whether such supply would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (rate) dtd. 28-6-17 in case value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25% of the value of the said Composite supply?

This authority find that the applicant is not the supplier of service to seek the Service code (Tariff)/ GST Rate/ nature of service supplied by NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Held that -1. The application is non-maintainable as per the Section 95(a) CGST Act.

2. We find any Ruling issued will not be binding on the Supplier of Service M/s NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi registered person with GSTIN07AACCN3496J1Z4 who has to raise invoice in this case with details of Service description and GST tax rate in the invoices raised by it. Thereby the very thought for Issuance of Ruling in this case by us, would frustrate Section 103(1) CGST Act and thereby glaringly mock the provision of Laws.

3. The Application is hereby rejected in pursuance to Section 95(a) and Section 103(1) CGST Act as SSDCL has no locus standi in said matter.