ORDER

No.

05/2021, dated05.08.2021 passed by the Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling – Order-in- Appeal passed – Regarding.

* * * * * 1. The subject appeal has been filed under Section 100 (1) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “TGST Act, 2017” or “the Act”, in short) by M/s. Sri Avantika Contracts (I) Limited, 610-B, Nilgiri Blocks, Aditya Enclav, Ameerpet, Hyderabad- 500 016 The appellant is registered under GST having GSTIN number 36AAJCS5046C1ZG, The appellant is a works contractor and engaged in the business of civil engineering and construction works. The appeal isfiled against the Order No. 05/2021, dated 05.08.2021(“impugned order”) passed by the Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling (Goods and Services Tax) (“Advance Ruling Authority” / “AAR” / “lower Authority”).

2. Brief Facts:

1. M/s Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited are engaged in construction services providing works contract services. They have secured contract from National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited (NBCCL) Delhi for constructing a building at Addu City, Maldives.

2. It is the understanding of the applicant that recipient of construction service is the Government of Maldives as the institute is being constructed as part of assistance from Government of India to Government of Maldives. Further as per the GST Act, 2017, the supply of services are taxable only within the territory of India. And therefore the supply of this service outside India does not constitute taxable supply.

3. They further contend in the application that the recipient of the service is Government of Maldives as they would be ultimate owners of the constructed building and hence the place of supply would be Maldives in terms of Section 13(4) of IGST Act, 2017.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling as well as the additionalsubmissions made by R. Narasimha Murthy, Tax Consultant. During the personal hearing, we also considered the issues involved on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant and relevant facts. At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the TGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the TGST Act.

5. The Government of Republic of India & Government of Maldives entered into a memorandum of understanding for construction of a Police Academy. As per this MOU the Government of India has awarded the work relating to planning, designing and execution of the project to National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.,New Delhi. Sri Avantika Contractors Ltd., are in turn awarded the sub-contract to construct the said building by National BuildingsConstruction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi. 6. Evidently Sri Avantika Contractor Ltd., have not entered into any contract with Government of Maldives for carrying out the said construction. Further they do not have any privity with respect to the MOU between the Government of Republic of India & Government of Maldives. Therefore the applicant does not have any mutual or successive relationship with the Government of Maldives. Hence Government of Maldives is not the recipient of any service from the applicant.

7. Further an agreement is reached by National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., (NBCCL) New Delhi & Sri Avantika Contractor Ltd to construct the building at Addu City in Maldives.

Hence Sri Avantika Contractor Ltd., is supplier of the service of the works contract and National Buildings Construction CorporationLtd., New Delhi is the recipient of the Service.

8. Both the applicant who is the supplier of service & NBCCL who is recipient of service are located in India and therefore the place of supply is to be determined under Section 12 of the IGST Act. The proviso