The definition of advance ruling makes it abundantly clear that it is concerned with determining a question of law or fact in relation to a service which is proposed to be provided by an applicant. The applicant admits in its affidavit that it has been providing investment research services since June, 2005 to the holding company (though claimed to be provided on a trial run basis) and is being paid for such services as per the agreement of December, 2005. The law does not differentiate between services provided during a trial run and those provided on an on going basis, more so, when the applicant has not set forth any details as to the ambit of such trial run, whether such trial run ceased or the operations continued till the date of application and the details of amounts received in consideration of services provided. The statement that “AP Asia in order to defray its expenses as per the agreement entered into in the month of December, 2005.” is quite vague and does not rule out the possibility of the applicant receiving fees/remuneration as contemplated by the Agreement for the services rendered from time to time. The applicant has not come forward with any details of the receipts from AP Asia and the nature of activities undertaken. The applicant has not put forward any evidence to indicate that the services already provided are distinguishable from those proposed to be provided in the future. It has, therefore, to be concluded that the ruling sought does not relate to a matter falling in the realm of “a service proposed to be provided” qualifying for issue of an advance ruling. In the circumstances, we decline to go into the merits and give the advance ruling. The application is rejected.
BEFORE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
(CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX)
NEW DELHI
Order No.AAR/06(ST)/2007
in
Application No.AAR/14(ST)/2006
