Mukesh Trading Co. (Mukesh Agarwal) ., In re
Date: October 31, 2022
Subject Matter
Application for advance ruling rejected for failure to submit the application in the prescribed format and deposit the requisite fee
Summary
The case involves M/s MUKESH AGARWAL, a work contractor of construction work in various government departments, who obtained a bid where they were required to provide a new Toyota Innova Crysta Zx automatic vehicle to the awarder, bear all running expenses of the vehicle, and transfer the vehicle to the awarder free of cost after completing the work. The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether they were entitled to claim input tax credit for the vehicle used in the work contract and whether the transfer of the vehicle could be deemed as transfer of property in the execution of the work contract. However, the applicant failed to submit the application for Advance Ruling in the prescribed format or deposit the requisite fee, and thus the application was rejected without any ruling.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, PUNJAB
1. M/s MUKESH AGARWAL, Mandi Harji Ram, Malout-152107 (GST Registration No. 03AALPA2772Q1ZI) is a Work Contractor of Construction work in various Govt. Departments. The applicant has obtained a work of Bid in which as per clause of the bid a new Toyota, Innova, Crysta Zx automatic vehicle is to be provided to the awarder and all the running expenses of said vehicle will be born by the applicant and after completion of the said work the said vehicle is to be transferred to the awarder free of cost.
2. Proceedings Under Section 98 of CGST/PGST Act:
The applicant had neither submitted his application in prescribed format for Advance Ruling I.e. (ARA-01), nor had submitted the required fee i.e. Rs.10,000 (5000/- under CGST, Act and 5000/- under PGST, Act). In this regard notice dated 25.03.2022 86 27.09.2022 were issued directing the applicant to file the application in prescribed format along with requisite fee of Rs. 10,000/- (5,000 each for SGST and CGST) as prescribed under the act. Despite giving couple of opportunities applicant had neither submitted application in proper format nor deposited the requisite fee.
3. QUESTION(S) ON WHICH ADVANCE RULING IS SOUGHT:
M/s MUKESH AGARWAL, Mandi Harji Ram, Malout-152107 (GST Registration No. 03AALPA2772Q1ZI is a Work Contractor of Construction work in various Govt. Departments. The applicant has obtained a work of Bid in which as per clause of the bid a new Toyota, Innova, Crustal Zx automatic vehicle is to be provided to the awarder and all the running expenses of said vehicle will be born by the applicant and after completion of the said work the said vehicle is to be transferred to the awarder free of cost.
1. According to the above circumstances the above said vehicle is the consumable material of the work contract. Whether the applicant is entitled to get the input tax credit of the vehicle as material used in work contract?
2. Whether looking to the above circumstances the transfer of vehicle is deemed to be transferred of property in the execution of the work contract?
3. Whether the applicant claim the ITC of the purchase of above said new vehicle.
4. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:
Neither the applicant has submitted his application for Advance Ruling in prescribed format i.e. ARA-01, nor has deposited the requisite fee for filling Advance Ruling application is Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000 each for CGST and SGST). Despite giving couple of opportunities, the applicant has not deposited the required fee of Rs. 10,000 under (Rs.5,000 each for CGST and SGST). Thus, the application is hereby filed without any ruling.
Note: The provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and PGST Act, 2017 are almost same except a few provisions. Unless specific reference is made to such dissimilar provisions in the two acts, reference to provisions of CGST Act, 2017 would mean a reference to the same provisions of PGST Act, 2017 and vice versa.