In re Sivasubramaniam Umapathy (Umapathy Poultry Farms) (GST AAR Tamilnadu)
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Tamil Nadu, dealt with an application filed by a poultry farming entity engaged in producing and selling eggs without any processing, apart from cleaning and packing. The applicant sought clarification on multiple issues, including whether transportation of eggs by Goods Transport Agency (GTA) or railway services is exempt, whether reverse charge mechanism (RCM) applies, and whether leasing agricultural land or land with poultry sheds for rearing hens qualifies for exemption.
The applicant submitted that eggs produced through animal rearing without further processing qualify as “agricultural produce” under the relevant exemption notification. It was also stated that transportation service providers had indicated possible GST liability under RCM, prompting the application.
Upon examination, the AAR observed that the applicant was a recipient of services such as transportation and leasing. Under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, advance rulings can only be given on supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Since the questions related to services received by the applicant and not supplied by them, the authority held that it was not legally competent to decide the issues raised. Further, the liability to pay tax in such cases rests with the suppliers of services and not with the recipient.
