Andhra Pradesh Medical Service & Infrastructure Development, In re

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2023 TaxPub(GST) 76 (AAAR-AP) : (2023) 109 ITPJ (G) 0681 IN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH SANJAY PANT & M. GIRIJA SHANKAR, MEMBER Andhra Pradesh Medical Service & Infrastructure Development, In re AAAR/AP/09(GST)/2022 20 December, 2022 Authorized Representative by: Siva Prasad, Authorised Representative ORDER (Under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act). At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the APGST 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 APGST Act. The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and APGST Act] by M/s. Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (herein after referred to as the Appellant) against the Advance Ruling No. AAR No.10/AP/GST/2022 dated 30-5-2022 issued by Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh. 1. Background of the Case: (1) APMSIDC had preferred an Advance ruling on the following questions. (a) Whether the procurement and distribution of drugs, medicines and other surgical equipment by APMSIDC on behalf of government without any value addition, and without any profit or loss, without even the intent to do any business amounts to supply under section 7 of CGST/SGST Act. (b) Whether the establishment charges received from State Government as per G.O. RT 672 dated 20-05-1998 and G.O. RT 1357 dated 19-10-2009 by APMSIDC is eligible for exemption as per Entry 3 or3A of Notification 12/2017 Central Tax (rate)? (2) The AAR, Andhra Pradesh had pronounced a ruling that the transaction under question 1 is supply and that the establishment charges based on the reasoning that these are ancillary to the principal supply they are also included in the supply as held above. Thus, in effect the ruling on second question is predominantly depended on the rationale and ruling of question 1. It appears that the Advance ruling authority had not considered the facts of the case and the ruling was hance not just and fair. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2023 TaxPub(GST) 76 (AAAR-AP) : (2023) 109 ITPJ (G) 0681

IN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH

SANJAY PANT & M. GIRIJA SHANKAR, MEMBER

Andhra Pradesh Medical Service & Infrastructure Development, In re

AAAR/AP/09(GST)/2022

20 December, 2022

Authorized Representative by: Siva Prasad, Authorised Representative

ORDER

(Under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act).

At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the APGST 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 APGST Act.

The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and APGST Act] by M/s. Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (herein after referred to as the Appellant) against the Advance Ruling No. AAR No.10/AP/GST/2022 dated 30-5-2022 issued by Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh.

1. Background of the Case:

(1) APMSIDC had preferred an Advance ruling on the following questions.

(a) Whether the procurement and distribution of drugs, medicines and other surgical equipment by APMSIDC on behalf of government without any value addition, and without any profit or loss, without even the intent to do any business amounts to supply under section 7 of CGST/SGST Act.

(b) Whether the establishment charges received from State Government as per G.O. RT 672 dated 20-05-1998 and G.O. RT 1357 dated 19-10-2009 by APMSIDC is eligible for exemption as per Entry 3 or3A of Notification 12/2017 Central Tax (rate)?

(2) The AAR, Andhra Pradesh had pronounced a ruling that the transaction under question 1 is supply and that the establishment charges based on the reasoning that these are ancillary to the principal supply they are also included in the supply as held above. Thus, in effect the ruling on second question is predominantly depended on the rationale and ruling of question 1. It appears that the Advance ruling authority had not considered the facts of the case and the ruling was hance not just and fair.