Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan (GST AAR Rajasthan)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2022-23/09
Date of Judgement/Order : 17.06.2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan (GST AAR Rajasthan)

As per Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017; this authority shall decide on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, by the applicant and “Authority” means the Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 96. Thus Section 95 allows this authority only to decide on matters or on questions in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant i.e. in the subject case this application can be entertained only if the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant itself. In this case, the supplies of Services are being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken not by the applicant but by the various supplier(s) to the applicant. These suppliers are distinct persons as per the provisions of the GST Act.

From the above-mentioned provision, it is seen that this authority is constituted to decide on matters or questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Thus, we find that the applicant is not a supplier in the present case, the applicant as per the contracts is a receiver of services supplied by the various suppliers.

Considering the provisions of the Chapter XVII of the GST Act and facts of the case, we are of the view that this authority can only pass rulings on supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the supplier-applicant only. Therefore, this authority cannot entertain the subject application as the applicant is not a supplier of goods or services or both, rather is a recipient of services in the present case.

In view of above, we find no reason to entertain this application. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we find that the present application of the applicant seeking ruling on questions stated hereinabove is not maintainable and liable for rejection.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031