In the matter of M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. the appellant was a Government of India Enterprises. It entered into contract for construction of residential accommodation along with survey, investigation, designing etc. with IIT, Bhubaneswar. It sought Advance Ruling on applicability of rate of taxes with respect to supplies made by it to IIT, Bhubaneswar. The question before AAR put forth by the Applicant to consider, whether the works executed by them can be treated as composite supply or not. Where the Authority for Advance Ruling in their rulings held that a number of works have been entrusted to the Applicant would not make it entitled to be categorized as composite supply, particularly in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Applicant has been engaged as a Project Management consultancy, for which the Applicant shall be paid agency charges of 5.5% in addition to attract cost of the work. The Authority for Advance Ruling have held that, above PMC service are to be treated as Pure Service & shall not qualify for concessional rate of tax. Accordingly, the Authority for Advance Ruling, finally concluded that the works entrusted to the Applicant by IIT, Bhubaneswar under contract/agreement cannot be termed as composite supply.Aggrieved by the above mentioned ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Odisha, the applicant filed an appeal before the Odisha Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling.The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling observed that IIT, Bhubaneswar entrusted entire project works on turnkey basis to appellant for works relating to Planning, designing and supervision of construction of various building infrastructure development and interior work etc. in IIT, Bhubaneswar campus and its extended campus. In agreement, it was clearly mentioned that after completion of project appellant will handover building to IIT, Bhubaneswar in ready to use condition. Nowhere in agreement, separate works orders were offered to appellant for different works and also there were no such conditions made in agreement to make separate invoices for separate works.Thus, turnkey project work executed by appellant would be treated as a 'works contract' in terms of section 2(119) and ought to be treated as a composite supply as per section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, it was held that ruling of AAR that works contract entrusted to appellant cannot be termed as composite supply, cannot be accepted and liable to be set aside.