I GUJARAT API'ELLATE AUTIIORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICES TAX tlfl'o*

D/5, I{AJYA KAR BTIAVAN, ASTII{AM ltOAD, "'-Umanxet AIIMEDAI}AD - 380 OO9.

ADVANCE RULTNG(APPEAL) NO. GI]J/GAAAR/APPEAL|Z\L'||Z (f N APPLICA'|ION NO. Advance Ruling/SGS |&CGST l2024lAIV03)

Date :7y.02.2025 Name and address of the M/s Devendra Kantibhai Patel, appellant 60, Krushna Dham Society, Near Pragati ,Nqg_ur, !iplo-{, ^{Su1at, (iyjarat_} ?95_007 GS"['IN of thc appcllant 24AZF| PI155R17.X Jurisdiction Office Office of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, lJnit-64 Division-7 Surat.

Advancc Ruling No. and I)ate GUJ/GAAR/w2 0241 l0 dated 30.05 .2024 I)atc of appcal 06.07 .2024 Datc ol' l'ersonal I lcaring 21.0r.2025 Prcscnt for thc appcllant Shri Anish Goyal (CA) and Shri Dinesh Gabani At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services 'l ax Act, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Services ^'fax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the'CGST Act, 2017'and the'GGST Act, 2017') arc pari mcrteria and have the samc provisions in like mattcr and dil'fcr lrom 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, 2017 would also mcan reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the GGST Act, 2017.

2.

fhe present appeal is filed under section 100 of the CGST Act,2017 and the GGS'[ Act, 2017 by M/s. Devendra Kantibhai Patel (for short - 'Appellant')

against the Advance Ituling No. GIJJ/GAAR/R/2024110 dated 30 .05.2024.

3.

Ilrielly, the facts are that the appellant is cngaged in the providing WCSI in addition to enginccring consultancy scrviccs to various ^(iovcrnmcnt agencics like R&B department, etc.. The nature of the work awarded to the appellant is

2DTP preparing 8L providing plans and estimate &" for the building work. The 'l'hc appcllant claims that this would clualily ur purc serviccs. appcllant is further I Works Contract Service

2 draft tondcr paper Y

.'* .---- "!,, -/.:i::'

r'i tt:

)

of the view that they are in relation to the functions entrusted to Municipalities under article 243W & to Panchayat under Article 243G and is exempt under Sr.

No. 3 of notification No. l2l20l7-C'l (It) dated 28.6.2017, as amended.

4.

In view of the foregoing facts, the appellant sought Advance Ruling on thc following questions, viz:

" (i) Whether providing services of preparing and providing plans and estimate and preparing and providing DTP [Draft Tender PlanJ for the building work provided by the assessee to the R&B department, Government of Gujarat under the contract would qualify as an activity in relation to Panchayat or Municipality

under Article 243 G or Article 243 W respectively, of the Constitution of India ?

(ii) If answer to the first question is in ffirmative then, whether such service provided by the applicant would qualify as pure service [excluding works contracl service or composite supplies involving supply of any goodsJ provided to the Central Government, State Government or ^(Jnion Territory or local authority by way of any activily in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243 G of the constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243 W of the Constitution as provided in serial number 3 of notification No. 12/2017-CT (R), dtd 28.6.2017, and, thus be

eligible for exemption frorn levy of CGST and SGST respectively ? ^"

5.

Conscqucnt to hcaring the applicant, the Grj arat Authority for Advance Ruling [GAAR], recorded the following findings viz:

.

that the first claim of the service having been provided to State Government, is correct;

.

the second claim of thc scrvicc bcing a 'purc service' appcars to be correct;

. rcgarding the third claim, that the activity is in relation to function entrusted to a Municipality and a Panchayat, i.e. Articles 243 G & W, GAAR held as under:

o that the applicant has not provided any dctails of thc buildings for which thcy

have provide