Conflicting rulings from tax authorities of advance rulings have resulted in confusion in different states on the applicability of GST on annual maintenance contracts. The various Authorities of Advance Rulings (AARs) have pegged GST on annual maintenance contracts (AMCs) that companies offer to customers of various products and equipment at 12%, or 18%, or even 28%, industry experts said.
The appellate authority for Advance Rulings in Rajasthan upheld AAR’s decision that taxability of services provided on customer’s equipment under comprehensive maintenance services agreement and equipment parts supply and services agreement which includes supply and replacement of spare parts to be taxed at chargeable applicable rates of 12%, 18%, 28% whichever is higher. AMCs are common practice for maintenance of all household consumer durables and in some cases even automobiles. Also, companies across different industries take up AMCs for maintenance of their large machinery.
This has become a cause of worry among companies that rely on AMCs.
They fear that tax authorities may question them on the treatment of these contracts. Also, AMC service providers are unsure as to what is the rate of tax they should collect from consumers.
Authority for Advance Rulings helps taxpayers ascertain their tax liability in advance. But AARs of different states have given divergent rulings on the GST to be levied on AMCs with some considering them as ‘composite supply’ and some as ‘works contract’. This has prompted experts to seek clarity from the central government.
Experts said the predominant intention of AMCs is service, though goods form a major part of the contract value. In a ruling, Uttar Pradesh AAR had termed AMC as a ‘composite contract’ that includes the supply of services and goods both and held it will face 18% GST. The principal supply of service and goods is merely incidental to the maintenance contract, it had said.
Maharashtra AAR on a plea relating to taxability of an AMC ruled that keeping customer’s engines in good working condition was a ‘composite supply’ with the provision of services being principal supply. It held that since the contract involved the supply of two or more goods or services together in the normal course of business, it would constitute ‘composite supply’, implying a rate of 18%.