Case Law Details
In re Pigeon Education Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka)
M/s Pigeon Education Technology India Pvt. Ltd., engaged in providing online education services for students from Classes I to X, filed an application before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling concerning input tax credit (ITC) related to import of services. The applicant procures advertisement services from foreign entities such as Facebook and Google, which it considers to be import of services under GST law. According to the applicant, Integrated GST (IGST) is payable on such services, and after payment of the tax, the corresponding ITC can be availed.
The applicant stated that it had availed import of services and was liable to pay IGST. However, due to seizure of its bank accounts by authorities, it was unable to discharge the IGST liability within the prescribed time limit and, consequently, could not avail the related ITC. The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether the time limit for availing ITC could be extended beyond the statutory due date, contending that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its control and that the tax liability would be paid along with applicable interest once the seized funds were released.
Upon examination, the Authority observed that the issue raised by the applicant did not fall within the scope of matters on which an advance ruling can be sought under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority further noted that the applicant had mis-declared that the issue was neither pending nor decided in any proceedings under the CGST Act. In view of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the application was found to be inadmissible and liable to be rejected.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING KARNATAKA
M/s Pigeon Education Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.19/4, Indiqube Alpha Building, 4th Floor Wing B1 B2 B3 B4 Marathahalli, Bangalore-560103, having GSTIN 29AAKCP7484L1ZG, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 97 of KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of KGST Rules, 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of Rs.5,000/- each under the CGST Act, KGST Act.
2. The Applicant is engaged in providing online education services for students from Classes I to X. In the course of its business, the Applicant procures advertisement services from foreign entities such as Facebook and Google. The applicant submits that the said services qualify as import of services under the GST law. Accordingly, Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) is payable by the Applicant. The Applicant is required to discharge such IGST liability directly to the Government, and thereafter is eligible to avail input tax credit (ITC) of the same.
3. In view of the above, the applicant in Advance Ruling Application has mentioned nature of activity in respect of which Advance Ruling Sought has selected – Others Import of Services. Further, the applicant in annexure has submitted the following details:
i. “The Applicant submits that in terms of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, input tax credit is required to be availed within the prescribed time limit, i.e., up to the 30th day of November following the end of the relevant financial year or furnishing of the annual return, whichever is earlier.
ii. The Applicant states that it has availed import of services and is liable to pay IGST under the provisions of the IGST Act, 2017. However, due to seizure of its bank accounts by the authorities, the Applicant was unable to make the payment of IGST within the prescribed time limit and consequently could not avail the corresponding input tax credit.
iii. In view of the above circumstances, the Applicant has approached this Authority seeking extension of the time limit for availing input tax credit beyond the statutory due date, on the ground that the delay was caused due to reasons beyond its control and that the tax liability would be discharged along with applicable interest upon release of the seized funds.”
4. At the outset, it is observed that the issue /question raised by the Applicant, as mentioned above, falls outside the ambit of the Authority for Advance Ruling under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, on perusal of the submissions made by the Applicant, it is also observed that the Applicant has mis-declared that the question raised in the present application is neither pending nor decided in any proceedings in its case under any of the provisions of the COST Act, 2017. Accordingly, in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the application is not admissible and is liable to be rejected.
5. Further, the Applicant, vide email dated 02.04.2026, has informed the Authority of its intention to withdraw the present application for Advance Ruling on the ground that the issue raised does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Authority.
6. In view of the above, we pass the following,
RULING
The application filed by the applicant for advance ruling s disposed off as withdrawn
Author Bio
