AAR ruling on admissibility of input tax credit can be sought by supplier only

In re Yogendra Bansidhar Bhatt (GST AAR Gujarat)

A conjoint reading of the sections 95(a) and (c), 97 and 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, depicts that advance ruling means a decision by the AAR to an applicant on matters or on questions specified under 97(2) ibid in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant; that an applicant, means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act; that such an applicant, may make an application in the prescribed form with appropriate fee, stating the question on which the said ruling is sought. The questions on which the ruling is sought is however, restricted to the 7[seven] issues listed in section 97(2), Further, in terms of section 103, such a ruling shall be binding only on the applicant and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer, in respect of the applicant.

AAR find that [a] the applicant before us is not the supplier of the service and [b] that the ruling sought is not for admissibility of input tax credit in respect of supply received by the applicant. In fact it is the supplier who may seek an advance ruling in the matter. This being the factual matrix, we find that the applicant before us has no locus standi in seeking a ruling in the facts of the present case.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT

Shri Yogendra Bansidhar Bhatt, Avdhoot Hospital, Floor No. 25-A, Geetanjali Society. Jetalpur Road, Chikuwadi, Vadodara-390007 [for short —`applicant’] is not registered under GST.

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