2018 (10) TMI 302 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 75 (A. A. R. – GST) – Supply of goods or Supply of services? – use of explosives in the blasting activity – Whether the blasting activity carried out by the applicant is to be considered as a 'supply of goods' or 'supply of service'?
–
Held that:- In the present case applicant uses explosives in the blasting activity at their client’s site. Thus it would be evident that blasting activity is carried out by the applicant for their client for which the applicant uses explosives. The applicant carries out blasting work with the aid of explosives. Thus, there is deemed supply of explosives in this case in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Pest Control (supra) as well as the supply of service in the form of the blasting work. Therefore, the situation as narrated by the applicant is a composite supply of goods and services and shall be covered by Section 2(30) and Section
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rrying out blasting activity, client inform the applicant number of holes to be charged at the site; that prior to initiating blasting activity, applicant with the help of shot firer determines the quantity of explosives to be filled in each hole and as per requirement, applicant fills every hole with approximately same quantity of explosives and thereafter each hole is connected to each other via detonators and/or detonating fuse and safety fuse; that each hole is connected to each other and network is created in such a manner that each hole is blasted in the manner and sequence as required. 1.2 The applicant further submitted that during the entire blasting activity, explosives are neither handed over to the client nor is it in possession of client; that any quantity of explosives or other material left after carrying out blasting activity is transferred back to the Magazine of the applicant. 1.3 The applicant has further stated that it is imperative to decide whether applicant is ca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lso considered the comments on the application offered by the department vide letter F.No. IV/16-64/Tech/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018. 3. In order to decide the present issue, the judgement dated 30.01.2018 of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Bharat Pest Control [Civil Appeal No. 1335 of 2018] = 2018 (5) TMI 1334 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, is relevant, wherein it has been held as follows :- 5. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Kone Elevator India Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (5) TMI 265 – SUPREME COURT], while considering the correctness of its earlier view with regard to dominant nature of the contract test, had, apart from holding that the dominant nature test would no longer be determinative, considered paragraph 56 of the report in Larsen & Toubro Limited 2 (2014) 7 SCC 1 = 2013 (9) TMI 853 – SUPREME COURT (supra) and has accepted the same to be the correct position in law. 6. In view of the above position of law enunciated in Larsen &am
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =