ORDER

PROCEEDINGS

(Under Section 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the KGST Act, 2017)

1. At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST, Act 2017 and SGST, Act 2017 are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the KGST Act.

2. The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (herein after referred to as CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017) by M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd, 58/1, Bellary Road, Venkatala Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore 560064 (herein after referred to as Appellant) against the Advance Ruling order No. KAR ADRG 23/2022 dated 12th August 2022.

Brief Facts of the case:

3. The Appellant is a Company which is engaged in construction commissioning and maintenance of entire work for water supply projects/sewerage projects/facilities. The Appellant has been awarded a contract by M/s Bangalore Water Supply & Swerage Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘BWSSB’ in short) to execute the work of Rehabilitation/Remodeling/Replacement of 400-100 mm dia sewer line in V-Valley. GST Rate Notification No 11/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 prescribed a rate of 18% on composite supply of works contract as defined in clause 119 of Section 2 of the CGST Act. This was subsequently amended vide Notification No 20/2017 CT (Rate) dated 22-08-2017 wherein entry Sl.No 3(iii) was applicable to composite supply of works contract when supplied to the Government, a local authority or a Governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of pipeline, conduit or plant for (i) water supply, (ii) water treatment or (iii) sewerage treatment or disposal and GST rate was at 12%. The entry Sl.No 3(iii) of the rate notification was further amended vide Notification No 31/2017 CT (Rate) dated 13-10-2017 to include the supplies of works contract to Central Government, Statement, Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity at the rate of 12%. This notification also defined the meaning of the terms “Governmental Authority’ and ‘Government Entity’. The entry Sl.No 3(iii) was further amended vide Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 (effective from 1st Jan 2022) where the concessional rate of 12% was made applicable only to the supplies made to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or a local authority. The supplies made to a Governmental Authority and Government Entity were no longer eligible for concessional rate of 12% with effect from 1st January 2022.

4. In view of the changes made to the GST rate vide Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021, the Appellant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) seeking a ruling on the following question:-

“i) Whether the supply of services by the applicant to BWSSB is covered by Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 read with Notification No 22/2021 CT (Rate) dated 31-12-2021?

ii) If the supplies as per question 1 are covered by Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 read with Notification No 22/2021 CT (Rate) dated 31-12-2021, then what is the applicable rate of tax on such supplies made w.ef1-1-2022?

iii) In case if the supplies as per question 1 are not covered by the Notification supra, then what is the applicable rate of tax on such supplies w.ef1-1-2022?”

5. The AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 23/2022 dated 12th August 2022 after giving a finding that BWSSB is not a local authority but a Governmental Authority, gave the following ruling in respect of the above questions:-

i) The supply of services by the applicant to BWSSB is covered by Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 read with Notification No 22/2021 CT (Rate) dated 31-12-2021.

ii) The applicable rate of tax on the supplies made by the applicant to BWSSB is 18% w.e.f 1-1-2022 as per entry 3(xii) of Notf No 11/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017.

iii) In view of the riding given at question (i), this question becomes redundant.

6. Aggrieved by the ruling given by the AAR, the Appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds.

6.1. The Appellant submitted that BWSSB holds PAN under Income Tax and GSTIN under GST which have been issued by the Departments classifying the entity as a local authority; that BWSSB is an autonomous body formed by the State Legislature under BWSSB Act on 10-09-1964 for water supply and sewage disposal. As per the definition of ‘Local Authority’ given in Section 2(69) of the CGST Act any other authority legally entitled or entrusted by the State Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund qualifies as a local authority; that a person which has already been held to be a ‘local authority’ under the GST law cannot be conferred with a different constitution for different purposes.

6.2. They submitted that the lower Authority in order to answer the queries raised in the application have gone on to determine the Constitution of BWSSB based on the old provisions of law; that the terms ‘Governmental Authority’ and ‘Government Entity’ were part of the entry 3(iii) of Notification No 11/2017 CT (Rate) as amended by Notification No 31/2017 CT (Rate) dated 13-10-2017and the explanation to the notification defining Governmental Authority and Government Entity applied to it; that these terminologies have been deleted from the entry 3(iii) of Notf No 11/2017 CT (Rate) vide Notf No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 and hence the explanation does not have any role to play while interpreting the rate of tax; that in order to determine the rate of tax, one has to see the definition of the term ‘ local authority’ in totality as defined under the GST Act. He submitted that the constitution of BWSSB squarely fits into the definition of ‘local authority’. He emphasised the fact that BWSSB is holding GSTIN 29BLRA06245B1DJ issued by the GST Department classifying them under Local Authority; that a person cannot have two different constitutions under the same Act. The Appellant submitted that since the constitution of BWSSB is being considered in this case, the representatives of BWSSB may be given an opportunity of being heard to submit the necessary evidence.

6.3. The Appellant also filed an application for condonation of 20 days delay in filing the appeal; that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period as the contractee (BWSSB) were holding discussions for further course of action as the ruling impacted their payment of tax. Further, the filing of appeal was also delayed since the impugned order was not uploaded by the Department authorities due to technical glitches on the Portal. Hence, due to circumstances beyond their control, they prayed for condonation of 20 days delay in filing the appeal.

PERSONAL HEARING

7. The appellant was granted a virtual hearing on 17th January 2023. The hearing was conducted on the Webex platform following the guidelines issued by the CBIC vide Instruction F.No 390/Misc/3/2019-JC dated 21st August 2020. The Appellant was represented by Shri. Manish Goel, Chartered Accountant.

7.1. The Chartered Accountant explained that the Appellant is a manufacturer of cement pipes and has obtained a contract from BWSSB for remodelling/replacement of sewer line; that the works contract service being supplied to BWSSB was initially chargeable to GST at 18% but later reduced to 12% vide amendment notification No. 31/2017 CT (Rate) dated 13th October 2017; that a further amendment made vide Notf No 15/2012 CT (Rate) dated 18th Nov 2021 read with Notf No 22/2021 CT (Rate) dated 31st Dec 2021, restricted the concessional rate of 12% only to works contract supplied to Central Govt, State Govt, Union Territory or a local authority; that the Appellant had approached the advance ruling authority seeking a ruling whether they were covered by the Notf No 15/2021 CT (Rate) read with Notf No 22/2021 CT (Rate) with effect from 1st Jan 2022. He stated that the lower Authority held that the Appellant is not eligible for the concessional rate of 12% GST on the works contract service supplied to BWSSB in as much as BWSSB is not a local authority but a Governmental Authority. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant is in appeal.

7.2. The Chartered Accountant requested the Bench for permission to invite the representatives of BWSSB for the hearing since the issue whether BWSSB is a local authority or not and whether tax at 18% is chargeable on the service supplied by the Appellant to BWSSB is of interest to the Appellant’s client since the tax is ultimately to be paid by BWSSB to the Appellant. Hence, he requested for permission to allow BWSSB to be part of the proceedings. The Bench responded that the issue was relating to the rate of tax applicable on the supply made by the Appellant and the presence of BWSSB as recipient of the supply is not relevant to the issue; that even though the tax will ultimately be paid by BWSSB, they cannot be construed as an aggrieved party to the ruling given. Further, BWSSB was not a party to the proceedings before the lower Authority and the Bench does not think it fit to include them in the proceedings at this stage.

7.3. The Chartered Accountant submitted that BWSSB is registered under the Income Tax law as a local authority; that even under GST, BWSSB has been granted a registration as a local authority and therefore, once the entity is considered a local authority as per law, it cannot change to a Governmental Authority when it comes to the point of taxation. He submitted that the supply of water by the BWSSB is a duty of the Municipal body. He stated that the lower authority has gone on to hold that BWSSB is a Governmental Authority by relying on a definition of the term ‘Governmental Authority’ which has been deleted from the Notification; that the Authority should have restricted its finding to whether BWSSB was a local authority within the meaning of the term given in Section 2(69) of the CGST Act. On whether BWSB qualifies as a local authority, he submitted that the AAR has not examined clause (c) of the definition of local authority which clearly covers within its scope ‘any other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Central Government or any State Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund’. He submitted that BWSSB is set up by the State Government and they are answerable to the State Govt and the BWSSB Act empowers them to collect taxes under Section 16 of the said Act. He relied on the advance ruling given by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Newtown Kolkata Development Authority (NKDA) wherein it was held that NKDA is a statutory authority established to carry out municipal functions and that it operates a local fund and hence is a local authority. On the issue of what constitutes a local fund, he said the same has not been defined in GST law and hence one needs to go to the General Clauses Act; that the same was examined by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 17th Feb 1981 in the case of UOI vs R.C Jain. He submitted that since BWSSB is empowered by the Act to manage a local fund and is answerable to the State Govt, it qualifies as a local authority. Consequently, the supply made by the Appellant to BWSSB is liable to tax at 12% GST in terms of Notf No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 read with Notf No. 22/2021 CT (Rate) dated 31-12-2021.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

8. We have gone through the records of the case and taken into consideration the submissions made by the Appellant in the grounds of appeal as well as during the personal hearing. The Appellant has sought for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. Given that the appeal has been filed within the condonable period, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned in exercise of the power vested in terms of the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act.

9. Coming to the issue at hand, briefly stated, the facts are that the Appellant is a supplier of works contract service to BWSSB as per the contract dated 21-12-2017. They were paying GST at concessional rate of 12% on the supply made to BWSSB by virtue of the entry 3(iii) of rate Notification No 11/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notf No 31/2017 CT (Rate) dated 13-10-2017. The relevant entry 3(iii) of the rate notification is reproduced hereunder for reference:

Sl.No	Chapter, Section or Heading	Description of service	Rate (percent)
3	Heading 9954 (Construction service)	(iii) Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause (119) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, supplied to the Central State Government, Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of,- (a) a historical monument, archaeological site or remains of national importance, archaeological excavation, or antiquity specified under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958); (b) canal, dam or other irrigation works; (c) pipeline, conduit or plant for (i) water supply (ii) water treatment, or (iii) sewerage treatment or disposal	12%

The concessional rate of 12% applied to composite supply of works contract service when supplied to Central Government, State Government, Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity. This entry Sl.No 3(iii) was later amended with effect from 1st January 2022 vide Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 wherein the words ‘Governmental Authority’ and ‘Government Entity’ were deleted from the scope of the entry. With this amendment, the concessional rate of 12% was applicable only when composite supply of works contract were supplied to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or a local authority. In view of the above said amendment, the Appellant approached the lower Authority seeking a ruling as to whether they will be covered by the amendment made vide Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 and accordingly what will be the rate of tax payable by them from 1st January 2022, on the supply of works contract service to BWSSB. The lower Authority examined the constitution of the BWSSB and held that BWSSB being a Governmental Authority, the Appellant will be covered within the scope of the amendment Notification No 15/2021 CT (Rate) and accordingly, the concessional rate of 12% as per entry 3(iii) of the rate Notification will no longer apply to the services supplied by the Appellant to BWSSB with effect from 1st January 2022; that the applicable rate of tax will be 18% in terms of entry Sl.No 3(xii) of the rate Notification No 11/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017. Aggrieved by this ruling, the Appellant is before us in appeal.

10. The argument of the Appellant is that BWSSB is classified as a ‘local authority’ by both the Income Tax and the GST Departments who have granted a PAN and GST registration respectively by treating BWSSB as a local authority; that they cannot be termed as a Governmental Authority for the purpose of determining the rate of tax. Therefore, the short point for determination by us is whether BWSSB, to whom the Appellant supplies the works contract services, qualifies as a ‘local authority’ in which case, the Appellant will not be covered by the amendment notification No 15/2017 CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 and the Appellant can continue to supply the service to BWSSB at the concessional rate of 12% in terms of entry Sl.No 3(iii) even after 1st January 2022. For this let us examine the definition of a ‘local authority’ as defined in Section 2(69) of the CGST Act.-

“Local Authority” means –

(a) a “Panchayat” as defined in Clause (d) of Article 243 of the Constitution;

(b) a “Municipality ” as defined in Clause (e) of Article 243P of the Constitution;

(c) a Municipal Committee, a Zilla Parishad, a District Board and any other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Central Government or any State Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund;

(d) a Cantonment Board as defined in Section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006);

(e) a Regional Council or a District Council constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution;

(f) a Development Board constituted under Article 371 of the Constitution; or

(g) a Regional Council constituted under Article 371A of the Constitution

11. The definition of ‘local authority’ is very specific and means only those bodies which are mentioned as ‘local authorities’ in clause (69) of section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017. We are primarily concerned with clause (c) of the above definition of local authority since it is the Appellant’s case that BWSSB is an authority which is entitled to and entrusted by the State Government to manage a local fund. We find that BWSSB is an autonomous body formed by the Karnataka State legislature under the BWSSB Act, 1964. The statements and objects of BWSSB Act, 1964 would show that prior to the enactment of the said Act, the Head-works and the Rising Main of the Water Supply Scheme were under the control of the Government, whereas the distribution was under the control of the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation. In order to improve the water supply and the drainage system, the BWSSB Board has been constituted under the said Act. However, the State Government has retained its power to issue necessary directions under Section 89 of the BWSSB Act. In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, the State Government appoints the Chairman and other members of the BWSSB Board. The BWSSB Board is charged with the general duty of providing a supply and improving the existing supply of water in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and of making adequate provision for the sewerage and the disposal of the sewage in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. For carrying on its operations under the BWSSB Act, the Board shall levy rates, fees, rentals, prorata charges, deposits, taxes, and other charges and shall vary such rates, fees, rentals, prorata charges, deposits, taxes and other charges from time to time in order to provide sufficient revenue,-

(a) to cover operating expenses, taxes, interest payments and to provide for adequate maintenance and depreciation, contribution to pension fund including all expenses incurred during the year;

(b) to meet repayment of loans and other borrowings;

(c) to finance year to year improvement; and

(d) to provide for such other purposes beneficial to the promotion of water supply and disposal of sewage in the Bangalore Metropolitan area as the Board may determine.

12. Coming to the definition of ‘local authority’ as reproduced above, the question that arises is whether BWSSB can be considered as ‘any other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Central Government or any State Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund’ as mentioned in clause (c) of the definition at Section 2(69) of the CGST Act? The Supreme Court in its landmark decision dated 7th Feb 1981 in the case of Union of India vs R.C Jain has laid down the following distinctive attributes and characteristics of a ‘local authority’:-

• (i) It must have separate legal existence as a corporate body;
• (ii) it must not be a mere governmental agency but a legally independent entity;
• (iii) it must function in a defined area and must ordinarily be elected wholly or partly, directly or indirectly by the inhabitants of the area;
• (iv)it must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, which, though not complete, must be appreciable;
• (v) the statute must entrust the authority with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to a municipal body for providing such amenities, as health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation etc. to the inhabitants;
• vi) it must have power to raise funds in the furtherance of its activities and the fulfillment of the projects entrusted to it by levying taxes, rates, charges, fees etc. all of which may be in addition to the moneys provided by Government. What is essential is that the control and management of the fund must vest in the authority.

13. On going through the BWSSB Act, 1964, we find that Section 9 of the said Act incorporates the BWSSB Board as a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable and shall by the said name sue and be sued. It is also seen that the BWSSB is mandated to function within a defined area i.e Bangalore Metropolitan Area which is the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Further, the BWSSB is entrusted with the administration of water supply and underground drainage in Bangalore Metropolitan Area, a function which is usually entrusted to a municipal body. Thus, BWSSB fulfils the attributes mentioned at (i), (ii) and (v) above. However, the authority fails to satisfy the characteristic listed at (iii) above in as much as the members of the BWSSB Board are not elected either wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, by the inhabitants of the area, but are appointed by the State Government. Therefore, the 3 rd attribute of a local authority is not satisfied in this case.

14. Coming to the 4th attribute which is that the authority must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, which, though not complete, must be appreciable, we find from the following provisions of the BWSSB Act that BWSSB is not an wholly autonomous entity but largely controlled by the State Government:-

• The Chairman and members of the BWSSB Board are appointed by the State Government.
• If the Board fails to carry out its functions, or refuses or fails to follow the directions issued by the State Government under Section 89, the State Government may remove the Chairman and the members of the Board and appoint a Chairman and members in their places.
• The Board may appoint a Chief Administrative Officer cum Secretary, Engineer in Chief, Chief Engineers, Additional Chief Engineers, Executive Engineers with the prior approval of the State Government.
• The Board has the authority to prepare schemes for the supply of water for domestic purposes within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and for the proper sewerage and disposal of sewage of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. However, a scheme costing less than Rs 10 crore with Government grant or loan as source of funds will be carried out only after approval of the Government Administrative Department. Further, a scheme costing more than Rs 10 crores irrespective of source of funding will be carried out only with the approval of the State Government Cabinet.
• The Board shall submit to the State Government every year a statement of estimated capital and revenue receipts and expenditure for the ensuing year and the same will be tabled before both the Houses of the State Legislature for discussion.
• The State Government may advance loans to the Board on terms and conditions as it may determine.
• The Board shall not borrow any loan without the prior approval of the State Government.
• The Board can write off irrecoverable arrears above Rs 25000/- only after obtaining the sanction of the State Government.
• The accounts of the Board shall be audited by the auditors appointed by the Government and the State Government shall place the audit report annually before the State Legislature
• The Board may make regulations to carry out its duties, with the prior approval of the State Government.
• The Board shall furnish to the State Government at such times as the State Government may direct, such statistics and returns and such particulars as the State Government may require from time to time.
• The State Government may issue to the Board such directions as it may think necessary for the purpose of carrying out the functions under this Act and the Board shall comply with such directions.
• The State Government may issue directions to the Board for making funding arrangements, to collect capital contribution from the beneficiaries of the project or through any local authority or to borrow loans from funding agencies or to borrow from the market as per requirements of the project.

As such, BWSSB fails to fulfil the 4th attribute of a local authority, as laid down by the Supreme Court.

15. As regard the requirement that the authority should be entrusted by the State Government with the control and management of a local fund, we find that the term ‘local fund’ has not been defined in GST law. The term has also not been defined in the General Clause Act, 1897. The Supreme Court in the R.C. Jain case supra, has observed that the expression ‘local fund’ appears to have received treatment in the Fundamental Rules and Treasury Code but the Hon’ble Court refrained from borrowing the meaning attributed to the expression in those rules. The Apex Court held that it is not a sound rule of interpretation to seek the meaning of words used in an Act, in the definition clause of other statutes; that the definition of an expression in one Act must not be imported into another. Thus, although the expression ‘local fund’ is defined in the Karnataka Financial Code, 1958, following the rule of interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court, we refrain from borrowing the definition of the term ‘local fund’ from any other statute. We find that as per the BWSSB Act, there is no fund entrusted to it by the State Government. Section 16 of the BWSSB Act provides that the Board shall, for carrying on its operations, levy rates, fees, rentals, prorate charges, deposits, taxes and other charges and shall vary the same in order to provide sufficient revenue (a) to cover operating expenses, taxes, interest payments and to provide adequate maintenance and depreciation contribution to pension fund including all expenses incurred during the year; (b) to meet repayment of loans and other borrowings; (c) to finance year to year improvement; and (d) to provide for such other purposes beneficial to the promotion of water supply and disposal of sewage in the Bangalore Metropolitan area as the Board may determine. BWSSB raises its own funds to carry out its operations and there is no local fund entrusted to it by the State Government. The fund that BWSSB raises on its own by way of rates, fees, rentals, charges, taxes, etc is only to meet its operational expenses. Although the State Government may make subventions to the Board in terms of Section 19 of the BWSSB Act, the same are in the nature of financial assistance or support and cannot be considered as entrusting a local fund.

16. We also observe that the Municipal Committees, the Zilla Parishad and the District Boards, as mentioned in clause (c) of Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, represent the units of Local Self Government where people of a local area govern themselves through their elected representatives in respect of a large number of matters including construction of buildings, roads, parks, lighting of streets, sewerage, conservancy and water works etc. These Local Self Governments are constituted under statutory provisions which elaborately provide who, on being elected, become members of the Municipal Boards, the District Board or the Zilla Parishad These Boards are basically independents bodies with very little or minimal of Government control and that too in the limited field. They formulate their own policies and implement those policies through the machinery provided under law. They have power to levy Panchayat, municipal or other local taxes and have also the power to realise those taxes through coercive processes, if they are not paid immediately on demand. They have also the right to raise, built up and manage their local funds. Since the term ‘any other authority’ in clause (c) of Section 2(69) of the CGST Act has been placed in the company of Municipal Committee, Zilla Parishad and District Board, it is a basic principle of statutory interpretation, that the meaning of ‘any other authority’ can be interpreted to mean a “Body” having and possessing, practically all the attributes of a Municipal Committee, Zilla Parishad or a District Board so far as their independent existence is concerned. In other words, an authority in order to be a local authority must be of like nature and character as a Municipal Committee, Zilla Parishad or a District Board. We however find that BWSSB does not satisfy this principle of statutory interpretation in as much as BWSSB is not a wholly independent entity but is largely controlled by the State Government. We therefore agree with the finding of the lower Authority that BWSSB is not a local authority.

17. The Appellant has relied on the advance ruling given by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Newtown Kolkata Development Authority (NKDA) wherein it was held that NKDA is a statutory authority established to carry out municipal functions and that it operates a local fund and hence is a local authority. We have gone through the said ruling and find that the West Bengal Authority for advance ruling has not taken note of the Apex Court decision in R.C Jain case supra while passing their ruling.

Further, the said ruling has been rendered by drawing reference to definition of ‘local fund’ as given in the West Bengal Treasury Rules. We find that the West Bengal Treasury Rules and the BWSSB Act are not pari materia statutes. Further, by following the rule of interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court in R.C Jain case we are not inclined to look into other statutes to define the expression ‘local fund’. As such the said West Bengal advance ruling in the case of NKDA does not have persuasive value in this case. In any case, an advance ruling is binding only on the applicant and the jurisdictional officer and does not have any precedent value.

18. The Appellant has also taken pains to emphasise that BWSSB has been registered with the Income Tax Department and the GST Department as a ‘local authority’; that when both the departments have acknowledged the status of BWSSB as a local authority and accordingly granted them a PAN and GSTIN, the lower Authority cannot take a u-turn and change the status of BWSSB to a Governmental Authority and not a local authority. This argument does not impress us much. GST Registrations are granted based on the information furnished by the applicant. In the application for registration, BWSSB have declared their constitution of business as a ‘local authority’ since Section 9(2) of the BWSSB Act states that for the purposes of the said Act, the Board shall be deemed to be a local authority. However, when it comes to determining the rate of tax applicable on the supplies made by the Appellant, which is dependant on whether the supplies have been made to a local authority or not, it is necessary to examine in detail whether BWSSB qualifies to be termed as a local authority in terms of the definition of ‘local authority’ as given in Section 2(69) of the CGST Act. In so examining, we find that BWSSB does not qualify as a ‘local authority’ as defined in Section 2(69) of the CGST Act. Accordingly, we hold that with effect from 1st January 2022, the Appellant is not eligible for concessional rate of tax of 12% in terms of entry Sl.No 3(iii) of Notification No 11/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notification No 15/2021-CT (Rate) dated 18-11-2021 on the supplies made to BWSSB. We uphold the order passed by the lower Authority with regard to the rate of applicable tax on the supplies of works contract service made by the Appellant to BWSSB with effect from 1st January 2022.

19. In view of the above we pass the following order

ORDER

We uphold the Advance Ruling No KAR/ADRG 23/2022 dated 12-08-2022 and dismiss the appeal filed by. The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd on all counts.