ARA, Rajasthan has pronounced judgment on 1.10.2021, in the case of Shri Vinayak Buildcon (2021) 36 J.K.Jain’s GST & VR 422, that;

Scope of Advance Ruling─Supplies undertaken by prior to the date of filing of the application are not covered─Since the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 6.7.2021 before the ARA with respect to supplies undertaken for the period from 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2021. Hence the case is out of the purview of the Advance Ruling.

Background.─1.The applicant has entered into an agreement on 13.12.2019 with M/s Sanwaliya Buildcreation LLP (hereinafter referred as “Builder”) who is engaged in construction of Residential Buildings on the plot of land allocated by UIT, Udaipur under the affordable housing scheme under Chief Minister’s Awas Yojna-2015. As per an extract of the message of the former Chief Minister of Rajasthan, the objectives for construction of residential houses was under policy of “Affordable Housing for All”.

2. The applicant entered into an agreement on 13.12.2019 with Builder for labour work related to civil work and development of residential houses at “Sanwaliya Dham”, Debari, Udaipur under Chief Minister’s Jan Awas Yojna-2015. A copy of agreement between the applicant and Builder dated 13.12.2019 has been provided with the original submissions. The issue pertains to applicability of exemption notfn No.12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.6.2017.

As per Point No. 1 of the agreement dated 13.12.2019, the duration of contract for completion of said project by the applicant was for a period of 24 months i.e., 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2021. Under this agreement the applicant must handover to complete all work whatsoever required as per released & approved drawings & signed by both party of whole project and handover the complete project to Builder.

3. Further, as per Note to point No. 1 of the said agreement, all conditions of the agreement had been decided on 1.4.2019 and the construction work started on site. But the agreement terms and conditions had been written and registered on 13.12.2019.

Findings by ARA.─The ARA  referred to S.95, CGST Act as under;

S.95. Definitions of Advance Ruling—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires.–

(a) “advance ruling” means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in S.97(2), or S.100(1), in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant;

Analysis by ARA.─The ARA  found that the Applicant wants the authority to decide whether the benefit of the exemption entry at entry No. 10 of the notfn No.12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.6.2017 is available to them or not. The ARA  found from the record that the Applicant has asked for the benefit of this notification with respect to Agreement dated 13.12.2019 made with  M/s Sanwaliya Buildcreation LLP which was effective from 1.4.2019. We find that the supplies mentioned in the agreement had been effected in the month of April, 2019 and work had been started. The ARA also found that the Applicant had applied for the Advance Ruling on 6.7.2021 in respect of availability of benefits of the notfn No.12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.6.2017. Since the Applicant has asked for ruling on the transactions effected prior to the date of filing of the application before AAR, The ARA  found it appropriate to visit the definition of the ‘Advance Ruling’ given u/s 95(a), CGST Act as above.

Conclusion by ARA.─From the definition, it is very much clear that the scope of the Advance ruling for AAR is limited to the transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. In the instant case, as already narrated, the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 6.7.2021 before the AAR with respect to supplies undertaken for the period from 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2021. Hence the case is out of the purview of the Advance Ruling.

Ruling by ARA.─As the question posed by the applicant is related to supplies undertaken by them prior to the date of filing of the application for advance ruling, no ruling can be given on the questions. Hence the subject application for advance ruling made by the applicant is not maintainable and rejected under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017.

Author Bio

Qualification: LL.B / Advocate
Company: self
Location: Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Member Since: 08 Apr 2020 | Total Posts: 25
I am s/o J.K.Jain , Jaipur & is Writer & Analyst of Fortnightly magazine "J.K.Jain's GST & VR". Expert in Commentary of GST/VAT View Full Profile

My Published Posts

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

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Telegram

taxguru on telegram TELEGRAM GROUP LINK

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

December 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031