In re Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan (GST AAAR Rajasthan)
The Ruling of AAR, Rajasthan dated 17.06.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AAR to decide the application afresh after considering the judgement dated 21.04.2023 of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta delivered in the case M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. Versus West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Service Tax.
In the matter of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan (GST AAAR Rajasthan), a significant ruling has been made that impacts the taxation of educational services. The ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Rajasthan, dated 17th June 2022, has been contested and set aside. The case revolves around the applicability of exemptions under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 regarding services provided to educational institutions, particularly in the context of conducting examinations.
The Board of Secondary Education (GSTIN – 08AAAGB0002J2Z3) of Rajasthan, a government authority in Jaipur, is involved in providing services related to conducting examinations to students. These services include a spectrum of activities, ranging from printing examination materials to processing results. To seek clarity on the tax implications of services received from various suppliers, the Board sought a ruling from the AAR, Rajasthan.
The crux of the matter lies in whether the services provided by suppliers to the Board for examination purposes qualify for exemption under relevant GST notifications. The Board contended that the nature of services rendered falls within the scope of exemption as specified in Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), read with pertinent circulars and notifications.
However, the AAR, Rajasthan, in its initial ruling, held that the Board, as a recipient of services, does not qualify as an applicant eligible for seeking a ruling. According to the AAR’s interpretation of Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, the authority can only entertain matters related to goods or services being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant themselves. As the services in question are provided by external suppliers, the Board was deemed ineligible to seek a ruling.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Board appealed against the AAR’s ruling on several grounds:
