In Re : Sasan Power Ltd.
GST
2018 (9) TMI 433 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MADHYA PRADESH – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 645 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MADHYA PRADESH – AAR
Dated:- 6-6-2018
Advance Ruling No. 1 of 2018
GST
Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Joint Commissioner, And Commissioner CGST And Central Excies And Shri Manoj Kumar Choubey, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Commircial Tax Division
\nFor The Applicant : Gopal Mundra, Ravi Ghiyani and Mrs. Laxmi Vyas
\nORDER
\n1. Brief facts of the case
\n1.1 M\/s. Sasan Power Ltd., Sasan (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”), are engaged in the business of generation and sale of electricity, having Registration No. 23AAKCS072M1ZB. The applicants have been allocated captive coal mines in the State of M.P. with a condition that the coal extracted would be exclusively used in the power generation plant of the applicant. The applicant have been granted one single registration under CGST Act, 2017 for the ca<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n zed as on 30.6.2017. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n same has been under scrutiny of the jurisdictional officers. It was also pointed out in the letter that the applicant company has also been audited by cost audit and certain objections have been raised through memos issued to applicant. To sum up in a nutshell, the question raised before the AAR, have already been under consideration and scrutiny of the department. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n iability to pay tax on any goods or services or both; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Re : Sasan Power Ltd.GST2018 (9) TMI 433 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MADHYA PRADESH – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 645 (A. A. R. – GST)AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MADHYA PRADESH – AARDated:- 6-6-2018Advance Ruling No. 1 of 2018 GSTShri Rajeev Agrawal, Joint Commissioner, And Commissioner CGST And Central Excies And Shri … Continue reading “In Re : Sasan Power Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n1.3 Further, the applicant had been using such coal in their power plant for generation of Electricity, which was exempted from Central Excise duty. During the process of manufacture\/generation of electricity in the thermal power plant, Fly ash emerges as an inevitable by-product\/waste which is further sold by the applicant against monetary consideration.
\n1.4 Consequent upon introduction and roll out of GST with effect from 1.7.2017, the 'supply' has become the taxable event and shifting of coal from coal mines of the applicant to their power plant for self use or captive consumption shall be out of ambit of 'supply'. In such circumstances, the applicant has sought Advance Ruling on following two questions :
\n(i) Whether the applicant is entitled to carry forward the accumulated cenvat credit as reflected in its Excise returns for the month of June- 2017 to GST regime in terms of provisions under the CGST Act, 2017, more particularly Section 140 o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Discussions and findings :
\n4.1 We have carefully considered the facts put up before the Authority by way of written submission and also those placed during the course of personal hearing. We find that the short point involved in the matter before us is regarding admissibility of Cenvat credit lying unutilized as balance as per the last ER-1 filed by the applicant for the month of June, 2017, in light of the provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 which specifically deals with the subject of Transitional Credit.
\n4.2 We have taken a note of the letter F.No. GST\/PartyIssue\/HQR JBP\/2017-18 dated 10.5.2018 of the Jo<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (f) whether applicant is required to be registered;
\n (g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term.
\n4.5 A plain reading of Section 97(2) clearly implies that the any question relating to CENVAT credit, which falls under transitional provision, shall be out of purview of Advance Ruling. Admissibility of input tax credit, as given in Section 97(2), relates to 'input tax credit' as defined in Section 2(63) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 2(62) ibid and not the CENVAT carried forward in TRAN-1, which categorically pertains to pre-GST regime. Thus, we find that the question placed before us does not fall within the four corners of issues defined for seeking Advance Ruling under Section 97(2) ibid. Hence the application does not hold ground to be admitted on this count.
\n4.6<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n