In re Multiples Alternate Asset Management Private Limited (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
Now, to decide the taxability of the above said Investment Advisory and Management Fees, it is imperative to determine the place of supply in respect of the impugned overseas transactions. Further, on perusal of the provisions under Section 97(2), reproduced herein above, it is adequately clear that question on determination of the ‘place of supply’ has been excluded from the above mentioned specific and exhaustive set of questions, in respect of which advance ruling can be sought under the CGST Act. This clearly indicates that we cannot pass any ruling in respect of the question which involves the determination of the place of supply of the goods or services or both.
In view of the above rationale, it can decisively be concluded that the question posed by the Appellant i.e. whether the GST is applicable on the Investment Advisory and Management Fees collected from the overseas Investors, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling, and hence cannot be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority. Accordingly, the Advance Ruling Authority should have refrained from passing any ruling over the above said questions raised by the Appellant. Since, the Advance Ruling Authority have passed the ruling in the instant case by transcending its jurisdiction, we set aside the impugned ruling passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and pass the order as under:
Order
We are of the opinion that since the questions asked by the Appellant are not covered under the jurisdiction of the advance ruling, no ruling can be passed in the instant case.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”] by Multiples Alternate Asset Management Private Limited (herein after referred to as the “Appellant”) against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-81/2018-19/B-25 dated 06.03.2019.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Multiples Alternate Asset Management Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) is an Investment Advisory Firm whose Registered Office is in 701/A, Poonam Chambers, ‘B’ Wing, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018, India and hold GSTIN 27AAGCM0997F1Z8. The Appellant provides Investment Advisory & Management Services (SAC Code: 997153).
2. The Appellant filed an Application before The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) on 27.09.2018 seeking confirmation of its interpretation of the law with regard to applicability of GST on its Services.
3. The AAR granted hearing on 05.12.2018 and 10.01.2019 wherein the Appellant represented the matter and made Written Submissions subsequently to record the submissions.
4. The Authority for Advance Ruling passed its Ruling dated 06/03/2019 which was received by the Appellant by email on 10th June 2019.
5. The Appellant, aggrieved by the Ruling passed by the AAR is filing this appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR).
6. The detailed background of the case along with documentation and the surrounding legal interpretation is explained in the Ground of Appeal Below:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
7. About the Appellant
7.1 Multiples Alternate Asset Management Private Limited (or the Appellant) is an Investment advisory firm that currently advises and manages approx. USD 1 billion of Private Equity Funds. The Appellant’s firm has an Investment team comprising of seasoned private equity professionals who operate with an entrepreneurial mindset and have full cycle track record of investing, nurturing and exiting investments.
7.2 There is a dedicated team of 14 investment professionals from varied backgrounds having experience in the field of investments who are primarily responsible for the functioning of the Appellant. These are supported by a team of 9 persons responsible for accounting, HR, secretarial, IT, admin and other allied functions.
7.3 Founded in 2009, the Appellant is guided by its vision to generate Superior Returns by Creating Distinctive Investments with Conviction and forging lasting Partnerships with all Stakeholders.
8. Services provided by the Appellant
8.1 The Appellant provides Investment Advisory & Management Services. The Appellant raises Funds from various investors located throughout the world, pools the Funds in an Investment Vehicle registered by SEBI under the SEBI (Alternate Investment Fund) Regulations, 2012 (“AIF”) and makes investment in various Indian Companies to provide Returns to the investors in the capacity of Investment Manager. The Modus Operandi of the Appellant is explained below.
8.2 The Services provided by the Appellant can be broadly categorized into the following –
a) Setting up of the Fund
b) Fund Raising
c) Pooling of Investments into AIF
d) Managing the Investments pooled in the AIF
The detailed activities covered under each head above is explained below.
8.3 Setting up of Fund
