Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd. which is a SPV of Municipal Corporation to run buses can’t be treated as Local Authority under GST : AAR

Case Details: Authority for Advance Rulings, Gujarat Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd., In re - [2021] 131 taxmann.com 312 (AAR - GUJARAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sanjay Saxena and Arun Richard, Member
  • Hardik Shah, CA and Rutvij Modi, CA for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant was engaged in passenger transportation services and it was running BRTS buses in Ahmedabad. It was a public limited company and created as Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. It filed an application for advance ruling to determine whether it would be treated as local authority under GST.

AAR Held

The Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the applicant was incorporated as Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), to run and operate buses under Rapid Transit System. The funds of the applicant were not notified as local/municipal funds by any Legislative Act passed by Gujarat Legislature or by Gujarat Treasury Rules. Moreover, it had separate legal existence and was a legal person incorporated with Registrar of Companies. Thus, it would not be classified as local authority.

Case Review

• • Union Bank of India v. R.C. Jain [1981] 2 SCC 308;
  • Doypack Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 1988 (36) E.L.T. 201 (SC);
  • A.B. Enterprise, In re [2020] 117 taxmann.com 412/80 GST 485 (AAR – Guj.);
  • Jayesh Anilkumar Dalal, In re [2019] 108 taxmann.com 535 (AAR – Guj.),
  • PDCOR Ltd., In re [2018] 97 taxmann.com 458/70 GST 147 (AAR – Raj.);
  • Sumitabha Ray, In re [2019] 109 taxmann.com 430/76 GST 485 (AAR – West Bengal);
  • Roopesh Kumar, In re [2019] 110 taxmann.com 395/[2020] 78 GST 145 (AAR – Kar.) (para 10.2);
  • Newtown Kolkata Development Authority, In re [2020] 115 taxmann.com 126/81 GST 454 (AAR – West Bengal);
  • Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P.) Ltd., In re [AAR/10/AP/GST/2021, dated 25-2-2021] (para 13)
  • Vidarbha Infotech (P.) Ltd., In re [2019] 107 taxmann.com 387/75 GST 462 (AAR – Mah.). (para 19) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, In re [2021] 127 taxmann.com 33 (AAR – Guj.) (para 9)
  • Newtown Kolkata Development Authority, In re [2020] 115 taxmann.com 126/81 GST 454 (AAR – West Bengal) (para 9)
  • Doypack Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 1988 (36) E.L.T. 201 (SC) (para 10)
  • Law-State Waqf Board v. Abdul Azeer Sahib AIR 1968 Mad. 79 (para 10.1)
  • A.B. Enterprise, In re [2020] 117 taxmann.com 412/80 GST 485 (AAR – Guj.) (para 10.1)
  • Jayesh Anilkumar Dalal, In re [2019] 108 taxmann.com 535 (AAR – Guj.) (para 10.2)
  • PDCOR Ltd., In re [2018] 97 taxmann.com 458/70 GST 147 (AAR – Raj.) (para 10.2
  • Sewerage & Infrastructural Development Corpn. of Goa Ltd. , In re [2019] 110 taxmann.com 400/[2020] 77 GST 32 (AAR – Goa) (para 10.2)
  • Sumitabha Ray, In re [2019] 109 taxmann.com 430/76 GST 485 (AAR – West Bengal) (para 10.2)
  • Roopesh Kumar, In re [2019] 110 taxmann.com 395/[2020] 78 GST 145 (AAR – Kar.) (para 10.2)
  • Arihant Dredging Developers (P.) Ltd., In re [Order No. 49/WB AAR/ 2019-20, dated 10-6-2019] (para 10.2)
  • Zigma Global Environ Solution (P.) Ltd., In re [2020] 117 taxmann.com 850/81 GST 11 (AAR – A.P.) (para 13)
  • Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P.) Ltd., In re [AAR/10/AP/GST/2021, dated 25-2-2021] (para 13)
  • Vidarbha Infotech (P.) Ltd., In re [2019] 107 taxmann.com 387/75 GST 462 (AAR – Mah.) (para 15)
  • Star Industries v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) [2015] 63 taxmann.com 131/52 GST 922 (SC) (para 18.2)
  • Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali [2011] 10 taxmann.com 416 (SC) (para 18.2)
  • CWT v. Hashmatunissa Begum 1989 (40) ELT 239 (SC) (para 18.2)
  • Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (77) ELT 474 (SC) (para 18.2)
  • Union Bank of India v. R.C. Jain [1981] 2 SCC 308 (para 19).