Case Law Details
In re Mayank Jain (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
Once it has been decided that the entire gamut of activities of the Appellant, which are in the nature of the facilitation of the main services between the Consultant Manager and its customers, i.e. prospective investors, are those of an intermediary, we proceed to the determination of the other issues as to whether the activities carried out by the Appellant are export of services or not. As regards the aforesaid issue of the determination of the Appellant’s activities as the export of services or otherwise, we are of the view that the determination of the export in respect of supply of any goods, or services, or both are out of the ambit of the Advance Ruling in terms of section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which lays down the set of questions, in respect of which advance ruling can be sought under the GST Act, 2017. The said set of questions do not cover the determination of the place of supply of any goods, or services, or both. Further, to determine the export of services in terms of section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, place of supply of the services has to be determined so as to ascertain whether the supply of services under question can be considered as export of service or not. Now, since the place of supply is beyond the ambit of the advance ruling as discussed above, we cannot pass any ruling in relation to the issue of the export. Accordingly, the Advance Ruling Authority should also have refrained from passing the ruling in the issues of export raised by the Appellant in his application.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
PROCEEDINGS
(under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
