Classification of service— The present appeal has been filed against the Advance Ruling Order.

As per the appellant the work performed by them is a composite supply under work contract whereas the Authority for Advance Ruling, in it's order dated 24.01.2022, has observe that “For the goods / services supplied by the applicant to be covered in the works contract, it is necessary that the contracts enumerated therein should relate to immovable property. If the contract is otherwise or if the same results in movable, then it may be a composite supply but not the wok contract.

The activities of installation, commissioning, testing, supplying mechanical work and electrical work are not in respect of immovable property as the machinery and plant is attached to concrete base to prevent vibration/ wobble free operation and preventing vibration/ wobble free operation does not qualify for being described as attached to earth”. Accordingly, they had observed that the said supply of goods/services by the applicant to JV is not work contract. Here we observe that the main thrust of the Authority for Advance Ruling was that since the service provide by the appellant are not in respect of immovable property, accordingly not qualified for works contract.

The instant contract consists of transfer of property in goods, coupled with supply of services which leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is a case of Works contract, covered under the definition of “Works contract” defined under Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017

Held that— The work awarded to the appellant is a composite supply of works contract service.

They are eligible to take the benefit of SI. No. 3(v)(a) of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended vide Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for the subject work.