2018 (11) TMI 335 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 820 (App. A. A. R. – GST), [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 47 (AAR) – Levy of GST – supply of food or drinks or any articles for human consumption – food supplied to SEZ area to employees of company – Zero rated supply or not – rate of GST – running a restaurant in the SEZ area – Held that:- The supply made by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in SEZ cannot be construed as zero rated supply by any stretch of imagination, as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit. Accordingly, GST will be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of the classification of services as provided under Annexure A to the N/N. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by the N/N. 46/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 14.11.2017.
–
Running a restaurant in the SEZ area – rate of GST @ 5% or not – Held that:- The food is being cooked at one p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
visions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and MGST Act ] by Merit Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Appellant ) against the Advance Ruling No. ARA-22/2017-18/B-29 dated 05.05.2018 = 2018 (7) TMI 1492 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – MAHARASHTRA. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A. Merit Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Appellant or the Company ) is engaged in the business of providing catering services to the various corporate offices on regular basis under contracts. The Company is registered as Outdoor Caterers under the GST
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Merit Hospitality has to supply the food at A Ltd. s premises. The distribution of the foods is directly done by the staff of A Ltd. The menu and the material specifications are mentioned in the contract and also the rate of various items are pre-determined between Merit Hospitality and the company. The billing is done by the Merit Hospitality, directly to the company on the monthly basis and payment is received from the company to Merit Hospitality directly as per terms of payment mentioned in the contract. Question: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, can the above activity be called as canteen activity, and the applicable rate of 5% be charged on our bills. Case (II) The facts mentioned in the case I remains the same except that in addition to the supply of food on the request of the client, Merit Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. also undertakes the services of distribution of food for which Merit Hospitality raises separate bill charging 18% GST. Question: Can both the activit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Hospitality claim that since the food is supplied directly to the SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? ; or (b) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a canteen in SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? Or (c) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a restaurant in SEZ area and hence applicable rate is 5% only? B. The appellant filed an application for advance ruling u/s 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the MGST Act 2017 raising the above enumerated questions/issues before the Authority for the Advance Ruling (AAR). C. AAR vide its Ruling No. ARA-22/2017-18/B-29 dated 05.05.2018 decided the issues as under:- Case I: The above question pertaining to the Case I mentioned above is answered in negative. Case II: The above question pertaining to the Case Il mentioned above is answered in negative. Case III: The above question pertaining to the Case Ill mentioned above is answered in negative. Case IV: Question (a) pertaining to case IV could not be answered by the authority due t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as raised in the case IV of the application stating that all the facts required for decision in respect of the specific case were not put before the authority when factually all documents as listed and demanded by the Authority were promptly submitted by the Appellant during the course of proceeding as evidenced by various submissions made by the Appellant. 3. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority failed to state in the order that the facts which he had required to decide the issue and according to him were demanded by him during the hearing proceedings by the applicant did not provide or was unable to furnish such information or documents related to those facts. 4. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority erred in quoting, relying and concluding his opinion based to his observations in respect of the applicant s other transactions pertaining to the domestic market and applying such observations in the case of transactions with the unit based in SEZ
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er on Case IV in the Original Advance Ruling Application; b. Grant an opportunity for a personal hearing and make further submission of documents if any; c. Pass any such further or other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Personal Hearing 6. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 03.10.2018, wherein the appellant was represented by Shri Vivek Tamhane, who reiterated the written submissions made at the time of filing appeal as well as the additional submissions dated 01.10.2018 as stated above. He deposed that the appellant have come before the Appellant Authority for the ruling in respect of questions asked pertaining to case IV of the original application filed before the Advance Ruling Authority, adding that they are not contending the ruling pronounced in respect of the questions asked pertaining to case l, case II and case III. Discussions and findings 7. Heard the appellant s arguments, wherein they intend to contend the rul
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
by any stretch of imagination, as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit. Accordingly, GST will be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of the classification of services as provided under Annexure A to the Notification 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by the Notification No. 46/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. 10. As regards the question c pertaining to the case IV of the appeal/application, wherein the appellant has claimed that since it is running a restaurant in the SEZ area, the applicable rate of GST will be 5%, it is observed that question raised in the application is not relevant and lacks rational in as much as the appellant is presuming and is putting pre-emptive notion before the Appellate Authority as to they are running the restaurant in the SEZ area and then asking authority to decide upon the GST rate applicable on such activities. To answer this question, first we would like
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =