In Re: M\/s. Khedut Hat,
GST
2018 (10) TMI 302 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 75 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – AAR
Dated:- 27-8-2018
GUJ\/GAAR\/RULING\/2018\/17 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advance Ruling\/SGST&CGST\/2017-18\/AR\/32)
GST
R.B. MANKODI AND G.C. JAIN, MEMBER
\nPresent for the applicant : Shri Brijen Mehta, CA
\nThe applicant, M\/s. Khedut Hat has submitted that it is in the business of carrying out blasting work at various sites by means of use of explosives and other materials for which it has obtained licence from Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization.
\n1.1. The applicant submitted that explosives procured by the applicant for blasting activity are stored only in licenced premises as stated in licence, termed as 'magazine'; that prior to carrying out blasting activity, client inform the applicant number of holes to be charged at the site; that prior to initiating blasting activity, applicant wit<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n carry out only blasting at the site only; that client is not qualified person to possess explosives and thus it is clear that applicant has not transferred title to goods used in blasting activity to its client and therefore the applicant has the view that blasting activity carried out by it shall be treated as 'supply of service'. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the contract executed by the respondent – contractor cannot have our approval. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and allow this appeal.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Re: M\/s. Khedut Hat,GST2018 (10) TMI 302 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 75 (A. A. R. – GST)AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – AARDated:- 27-8-2018GUJ\/GAAR\/RULING\/2018\/17 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advance Ruling\/SGST&CGST\/2017-18\/AR\/32) GSTR.B. MANKODI AND G.C. JAIN, MEMBER Present for the applicant : Shri Brijen Mehta, CA The … Continue reading “In Re: M\/s. Khedut Hat,”<\/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-14282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14282","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=14282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n1.4 On the basis of above facts and submissions, the applicant has sought ruling on following question-
\n(i) Whether the blasting activity carried out by the applicant is to be considered as a 'supply of goods' or 'supply of service' ?
\n2. We have heard Shri Brijen Mehta, Chartered Accountant, for the appellant on 18.01.2018. We have considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling and submissions made at the time of personal hearing. We have also considered the comments on the application offered by the department vide letter F.No. IV\/16-64\/Tech\/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018.
\n3. In order to decide<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the 'CGST Act, 2017) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the 'GGST Act, 2017') provides for scope of supply and the definition of supply is an inclusive definition. Therefore, Schedule II is not the exhaustive condition for the scope of supply as defined under Section 7.
\n4. 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 C<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n