M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli

(i) Whether the additional grounds and later filings are to be taken on record. (ii) Whether the works contracts for the four co-operative spinning mills were taxable at 12% under item (vi) of Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate). (iii) Whether interest under Section 50(1) and penalty under Section 73(9) call for interference. (iv) Whether the differential tax should be recomputed on a cum-tax basis. (v) Whether the disallowance of credit of Rs. 4,19,476 with interest under Section 50(3) calls for interference (para 37).

Additional material (para 38). The additional grounds elaborated existing grounds without a new factual case, and the principal documents had been before the authorities below; they were taken on record unopposed.

Who received the supply (paras 39–49). The burden lay on the appellant to bring itself within the entry, whose two conditions are the status of the recipient and the use of the works. The State-level Monitoring Committee's minutes approved a contract price with a stated GST component; a decision on how much tax a society would bear is a decision on price, not a determination of the rate, which is fixed under Section 9(1) and cannot be altered by any department of the State. The presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam goes to regularity, not to the legal effect claimed. The Architect was engaged by each society with the Directorate's approval. Every work order, agreement, tender and invoice identified the society as employer, owner and buyer, and no tax was deducted under Section 51 because funds were transferred to the societies. The recipient of each supply was the society.

"Government Entity" (paras 50–56). The first limb, a body "set up by an Act", was not attracted, the Igatpuri society being registered in 2001 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Shapoorji Pallonji, holding the limbs disjunctive, assists only bodies created by statute. The second limb requires a body "established by any Government" with 90% participation by equity or control; that was not pleaded, a society formed under a scheme and registered under the general law is not thereby established by Government, the Igatpuri bye-laws showed an elected board, and nothing was filed for the other three societies. The Tribunal expressly left undecided whether Government Resolutions on record showing a 1:9 share-capital ratio met the 90% test, since the "established by any Government" requirement failed in any event. Bagalkot Nirmithi Kendra turned on a society headed and governed by Government officers. Government sponsorship cannot substitute for the tests in the definition.

Use of the works (paras 58–63). Item (a) covers only works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or business. The test is objective, from what the works are; every contract was for a main factory building, and the bye-laws stated the mill's object to be producing yarn for sale. A factory for spinning cotton into yarn for sale is meant for industry and commerce; beneficent objects of the owner do not change the character of the building, and the "one-time capital work" argument would leave item (a) with no field. The Explanation inserted by Notification No. 17/2018-CT (Rate) applies only to Governments and local authorities. Vijai Electricals (an advance ruling binding only under Section 103) and P. Venugopal Naidu did not assist. Either finding sufficed, and the supplies fell under item (xii) at 18%.

Interest, penalty and estoppel (paras 65–71). Interest under Section 50(1) is compensatory and geared to tax unpaid, following Pratibha Processors; it is computed on tax payable, not tax collected. Section 73 is itself the provision for cases without fraud or suppression; the penalty in Section 73(9) is fixed at 10% or Rs. 10,000, avoidable only by payment within 30 days under Section 73(8), and admits of no discretion. Promissory estoppel fails because no document fixed the rate, any representation was by the sponsoring department and not the tax administration, and, following Kasinka Trading, there is no estoppel against a statutory liability.

Cum-tax value (paras 72–73). The appellant's invoices stated contract receipts "exclusive of taxes" and its sales register recorded receipts as exclusive, so there was no basis to treat the price as inclusive of tax.

Input tax credit (paras 74–83). Under Section 155 and Ecom Gill Coffee Trading, the burden lay on the appellant. Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST did not alter Section 16(2) but required, for differences up to Rs. 5 lakh, a supplier's certificate of tax payment; despite an undertaking before the first appellate authority, none was produced, and the annexures contained no invoice-wise reconciliation. A printout showing that a supplier filed a return does not show that the specific supplies were declared and tax paid. Suncraft Energy did not assist, the SLP dismissal there attracting no merger under Kunhayammed, and D.Y. Beathel and Arise India turned on their facts. A remand was declined because the evidence lay in the appellant's own hands and every opportunity had been given.