TAMILNADU POLYMER INDUSTRIES PARK LIMITED (hereinafter called the ‘Applicant’ or ‘TPIPL’) 19-A 3rd floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600008 is registered under the GST Vide GSTIN 33AAFCT3356C1ZO. They have sought Advance Ruling on the following questions:

1. Applicable GST rate for EPC contract engaged in works, viz; site grading, earth filling, road works, storm water drains, utility corridor, street lighting, water storage and distribution system.

2. Applicable GST rate for civil contractor engaged in civil construction works, viz; prefabricated PUP (polyurethane) Administrative building, training centre, technology facilitation centre, etc.

The Applicant has submitted the copy of application in Form GST ARA 01 and also submitted a copy of Challan evidencing payment of application fees of ₹ 5,000/– each under sub-rule (1) of Rule 101 of CGST rules 2017 and SGST Rules 2017.

2.1 The applicant has stated that their company is a 50:50 joint venture between Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited (TIDCO) and State Industries Corporation of Tamilnadu Limited (SIPCOT) (both are state Government Companies) and is indirectly 100% owned by Government of Tamilnadu, formed as a special purpose vehicle and registered under the Companies Act, 2013, to carry on the business relating to construction, maintenance and operation of industrial park, specifically for plastic industry. The industrial park is being developed at Puzhudivakkam and voyalur Ponneri taluk, Tiruvallur District.

2.2 The Applicant has engaged an FTC contractor namely M/s Lancewood Infra Private Limited to develop the basic infrastructure of the park viz; site grading, earth filling, road works, storm water drains, utility corridor, street lighting, water storage and distribution system at TPIPL project site. Subsequently, M/s Lancewood Infra Private Limited completed some portion of work and raised invoice during the FY 2020-21 with GST @ the rate of 12%. The applicant has stated that they had accepted the invoice and made Inc payment after deducting GST-TDS at 2%. The applicant has also stated that the contractor has contended that the applicable GST rate for contracts with Public Sector enterprises is 12%.

2.3 The applicant has also engaged a contractor for construction of prefabricated PUF (polyurethane) Administrative building, training centre, technology facilitation centre, etc., at the TPIPL project site. They have stated that TPIPI. has registered as a Tax deductor under Section 51 of CGST Act 2017, for deducting TDS at 2%. The applicant is of the view that they arc a Public Sector Undertaking and the applicable GST rate is 12% for both ETC contracts and Civil works.

2.4 In view of the above facts, the applicant has submitted that they have sought the Advance Ruling Authority based on the clarification issued by the Additional Commissioner, Chennai North Commissionerate in response to their letter dt.25.01.21, wherein they had requested the jurisdictional Commissionerate to confirm the applicable GST rate for EPC contract and civil construction work. The jurisdictional authority had vide letter dt.08.02.21 informed the applicant that their request comes under the ambit of Section 97 of the CGST Act 2017 and that they were advised to make an application before the Advance ruling authority.

3.1 Due to the prevailing PANDEMIC situation and in order not to delay the proceedings, the applicant was addressed through the Email Address mentioned in the application to seek their willingness to participate in a virtual Personal Hearing in Digital media. The applicant consented and the hearing was held on 22.10.2021. The Authorised representative, Shri. C. Vinodh Kumar, Chartered Accountant, appeared for the hearing and reiterated the submissions made in the application. He stated that they seek the ruling to clarify the rate applicable on the services received by them. It was explained that as per Section 95 of GST Act, Advance ruling can be sought only by the supplier, on the supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken and that their suppliers may be asked to seek the ruling if such supplies are being undertaken presently/proposed to be undertaken.

4.1 The Central Jurisdictional authority, who holds the administrative jurisdiction over the applicant reported that there are no pending proceedings on the issue raised by the applicant, in their Advance Ruling application.

4.2 The State Jurisdictional authority has not furnished the report and is construed that there are no proceedings pending on the issues raised by the applicant in their Advance Ruling application.

5.1 We have carefully examined the submissions of the applicant in their application and during the Hearing. It is seen that the applicant seeks ruling to determine the applicable GST rate for the EPC contract engaged in works, viz; site grading, earth filling, road works, storm water drains, utility corridor, street lighting, water storage and distribution system and for the civil contractor engaged in civil construction works, viz; prefabricated PUF (polyurethane) Administrative building, training centre, technology facilitation centre, etc received by them. The admissibility of the application was examined during the hearing extended to them. The applicant stated that they have sought ruling to clarify the rate applicable on the services received by them. Thus, the question is on the determination of GST rate in respect of the services received by thorn and not on the supply made by them.

5.2 Section 95 (a) of CGST and TNGST Act defines ‘advance ruling’ as

(a) “advance ruling” means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub-section (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant;

From the above, it is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. Further, as per Section 103 (1) of the GST Act, the ruling is binding only on the applicant and the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of the applicant. In the case at hand, the applicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. Accordingly, this question is riot liable for admission before this authority and therefore not admitted for consideration on merits of the case.

6. In view of the above, we rule as under

RULING

The application is not admitted, under Section 98(2) read with Section 95 (a) of CGST Act, 2017/TNGST Act, 2017 for the reasons mentioned in para 5.2 above.