In re Tvl. Imperial Graphics Private Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu)
The applicant filed an advance ruling application raising questions related to GST exemption on hostel accommodation and related services. During the personal hearing held on 11.11.2025, the applicant’s authorised representatives reiterated their submissions and furnished additional documents, including copies of notifications, circulars, case laws, and rental agreements. They argued that hostel facilities provided to girl students and working women should be treated as “residential dwelling,” citing judicial decisions in support.
However, the Authority examined the admissibility of the application before considering the merits. It noted that the core queries raised did not relate to supplies made or proposed to be made by the applicant itself. Instead, the questions concerned activities undertaken by the applicant’s tenant, specifically the provision of hostel and residential accommodation to students.
The application raised five main questions:
-
Whether hostel/residential accommodation provided by the tenant qualifies as “residential dwelling” eligible for exemption under specified GST notifications for a past period.
-
Whether the same activity qualifies for exemption under a later notification effective from 12.07.2024.
-
Whether supply of in-house food to hostel inmates would be exempt as part of a composite supply if accommodation were exempt.
-
Whether a Karnataka High Court judgment applied to the applicant’s case.
-
Whether a Madras High Court judgment applied to the applicant’s case.
The Authority referred to Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, which defines “advance ruling” as a decision on questions related to the supply of goods or services being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Since the first two questions concerned the tenant’s activities and not the applicant’s own supply, they were considered outside the scope of advance ruling.
The third question, regarding exemption of food supplied in hostels, was found to be dependent on the first two questions. As those primary questions were not admissible, this query was also held to be inadmissible.
With respect to the fourth and fifth questions, the Authority observed that they sought clarification on the applicability of specific High Court judgments to the applicant’s situation. Section 97(2) of the CGST Act lists the types of questions on which advance rulings can be sought, such as classification, applicability of notifications, time and value of supply, input tax credit, tax liability, registration requirement, and whether an activity amounts to supply. Determining whether a judicial precedent applies to a particular case does not fall within these categories. Therefore, these questions were also held to be outside the permissible scope.
The Authority further pointed out that under Section 103(1) of the CGST Act, an advance ruling is binding only on the applicant who sought it and the concerned tax officer. It is not binding on others. Hence, seeking a ruling based on the applicability of other case laws was not consistent with the statutory framework of advance rulings.
During the hearing, the authorised representatives referred to a similar case admitted by the Karnataka AAR and Appellate Authority and stated they would furnish supporting documents. However, no such documents were submitted subsequently. The Authority also noted that even if such material were provided, it would not alter the position regarding admissibility under the Act.
Since all the questions raised were found to be outside the scope of advance ruling, the Authority concluded that the application itself was liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. As a result, the Authority did not examine the merits of the exemption claims or other substantive issues.
Ruling Outcome
The advance ruling application was rejected in full on the ground that the queries did not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and were otherwise outside the scope of questions permissible under the advance ruling mechanism.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
