Case Law Details
Sutherland Mortgage Services INC Vs Principal Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has jurisdiction to determine Place of Supply under GST
Facts: Applicant had raised a question before the AAR as to whether the supply made would qualify as export of service as defined in Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017. The AAR held that question essentially involves the determination of ‘place of supply’ which is not included in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 as a question on which advance ruling can be sought. That AAR is a creature of statute and has to function within the legal boundary mandated by the Act; that as the ‘place of supply’ is not covered by Section 97(2) of the Acts, the AAR is helpless to answer the question raised in the application, as it is lacking jurisdiction to decide the issues – Accordingly, the Application was rejected by the AAR.
Decision of the High Court: The Hon’ble Court held as under It is true that the issue relating to determination of place of supply is not expressly enumerated in any of the clauses as per clauses (a) to (g) of section 97(2) of the CGST Act, but there cannot be any two arguments that the said issue relating to determination of place of supply, which is one of the crucial issues to be determined as to whether or not it fulfils the definition of place of service, would also come within the ambit of the larger issue of ‘determination of liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both’ as envisaged in clause (e) of s.97(2) of the Act. The Advance Ruling authority has proceeded on a tangent and has missed the said crucial aspect of the matter and has taken a very hyper technical view that it does not have jurisdiction for the simple reason that the said issue is not expressly enumerated in s.97(2).
Court has no hesitation to hold that the said view taken by the AAR is legally wrong and faulty and, therefore, the matter requires interdiction in judicial review in the instant writ proceedings. It is ordered that the said rejection order of the AAR is quashed and the application will stand remitted to the Authority concerned for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with the law. The Advance ruling in terms of s.98(4) may be duly rendered by the AAR without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 to 4 months. It has to be borne in mind that India is at the cusp of great global changes and there cannot be any two opinions for anyone, who cherishes the best interest for this country, that with extreme hard work and industry, we have to progress economically, socially and in all spheres of life –
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
