Webel Support Multipurpose Service Cooperate Society Limited ., In re

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING WEST BENGAL

1.1 At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act, for short) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the WBGST Act, for short) have the same provisions in like matter except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the WBGST Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of these proceedings, the expression “GST Act” would mean the CGST Act and the WBGST Act both.

1.2 The applicant is a Co-operative Society registered under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Registration Act. The applicant provides multipurpose services including supply of manpower support services to various Government Departments under M/s Webel Technology Limited (WTL, for short). The applicant has received a work order from WTL for providing manpower services to the Public Health Engineering Directorate of the Government of West Bengal for executing their „JAL JEEVAN MISSION’ Project in the state of West Bengal.

1.3 The applicant filed an application under sub section (1) of section 97 of the GST Act and the rules made there under raising following questions vide serial number 14 of the application in FORM GST ARA-01:

Question 1: Whether Jal Jeevan Mission is correct in classifying the services provided to Government entities as exempted services?

Question 2: Whether the services are exempted under notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?

1.4 This authority vide order dated 20.12.2024 held that the applicant provides services to Webel Technology Limited and not to the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of West Bengal. The instant supply of services therefore would not qualify to be an exempted supply under serial number 3 of the Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.

1.5 The applicant has filed an application for rectification of the said order passed by this authority under following grounds:

• The applicant is supplying pure labour services to Webel Technology Ltd., which is a Government Undertaking concern. The said supply is exempted under Notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dt 28.06.2017 as Webel Technology Ltd is supplying the same services to Public Health Engineering Department, Government of West Bengal relating to “Jal Jeevan Mission” Project.
• The applicant as well as the service recipient (Webel Technology Ltd) filed application before the Hon’ble West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling as to whether the supply of pure labour to the Government is exempted or not.
• The Advance Ruling authority has passed an order in favour of Webel Technology Limited that their supply to Public Health Engineering Department, Government of West Bengal is exempted from payment of tax.
• On the contrary, in the case of applicant, the exemption is not allowed by the Advance Ruling authority.
• Thus, the applicant has sought rectification and requested to allow the exemption to the applicant also as provided to Webel Technology Ltd.

1.6 In connection to the application for rectification, the applicant has been allowed an opportunity of being heard. Mr Goutam Chakrabarty, authorised advocate of the applicant has appeared on 18.02.2025 and has reiterated the submission as noted in the preceding para.

1.7 In terms of section 102 of the GST Act, the Authority or the Appellate Authority or the National Appellate Authority may amend any order passed by it under section 98 or section 101 or section 101C respectively, so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the Authority or the Appellate Authority or the National Appellate Authority on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, the applicant appellant, the Authority or the Appellate Authority within a period of six months from the date of the order.

1.8 Any mistake which is manifest, plain, or obvious may be regarded as a mistake apparent on the face of the record and thereby may be rectified invoking the provision of section 102. A rectification is done when there is an error which is apparent on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document. Thus, errors which involves question of law cannot be rectified. The Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC), held that; “a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.

1.9 The Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Bidhannagar Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate has submitted that the relief sought by the applicant is of the nature of merit which is a subject of interpretation of law and therefore the applicant is not entitled to seek rectification under section 102 of the GST Act.

1.10 We are also of the same view as expressed by the officer concerned from the revenue that the issue raised by the applicant is a matter of legal interpretation and this authority, after a detailed discussion, has pronounced the ruling. The applicant, being aggrieved by the ruling, may approach before the Appellate Authority under section 100 of the GST Act. There is no scope to invoke the provision of section 102 in the instant case.

1.11 In light of above, we are unable to accept the application for rectification of the order filed by the applicant. The same is therefore rejected.