In re Liberty Translines (GST AAR Maharashtra)
The second question raised by the applicant is whether Applicant would be right in charging GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism to POSCO in terms of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 when POSCO as the main contractor is already charging GST @12% under the same Notification, which is going to “remain unchanged?
Vide the second question mentioned above, the Applicant is actually asking whether they can charge GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism as a GTA, in terms of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017. We have already held above that, in the subject case, applicant cannot issue another consignment note for the same goods and for the same transaction where consignment notes are already issued by POSCO. Hence the applicant, in respect of the subject transaction cannot be treated as a GTA and therefore cannot charge GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism as a GTA, in terms of the said Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017.
The third question raised in the subject application is whether POSCO would be eligible to claim credit of the 12% GST charged by the Applicant in its invoice under Forward charge mechanism. The proper person to raise this question would be POSCO and not the applicant. We therefore refrain from answering this particular question.
The fourth question is whether it is procedurally correct to have two GTA Service Providers and two consignment notes for the same movement of goods, one issued by the Applicant as a sub-contractor and the other by Posco JSDC Pvt. Ltd. as the main contractor.
As per Section 95, the term ‘advance ruling’ means a decision provided by this authority to an applicant on matters or questions specified in subsection 2 of Section 97, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, states that the question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of—
a classification of any goods or services or both;
a. applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
b. Determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
c. Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
d. determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
e. Whether the applicant is required to be registered
f. whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term.
We observe in the instant case, the question which has been raised by the applicant is not pertaining to any of the matters mentioned in Section 97 (2) of the GST Act. In fact, the question raised is with respect to ‘procedure’ which the applicant wants to follow. Section 97(2), which encompasses the questions, for the ruling by this Authority does not deal with the issue of procedures to be followed by applicants. Hence, it is held that this authority does not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such matters.
AAAR Order-There cannot be two GTAs in single transportation of goods
