In re M C Prasanth (GST AAR Kerala)
GST Advance Ruling Application Dismissed as Questions Related to Clients, Not Applicant; Kerala AAR Declines to Rule on RCM Liability for Lack of Specific Transaction; No Advance Ruling on Academic GST Questions, Holds Kerala AAR; Kerala AAR Rejects RCM Clarification Request Filed on Hypothetical Business Scenarios.
In , the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) rejected an advance ruling application filed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the application was not maintainable because the questions raised did not relate to any supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant himself.
The applicant, a proprietor of M C Associates in Kannur, Kerala, sought clarification on the applicability of GST under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) in two hypothetical situations. In the first scenario, the applicant proposed to deal exclusively in exempt goods, voluntarily obtain GST registration, and rent commercial premises from an unregistered landlord. Clarification was sought on whether GST would apply under RCM pursuant to Notification No. 09/2024-Central Tax (Rate) dated 08.10.2024, and whether the liability would arise under Section 9(3) or Section 9(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. In the second scenario, the applicant stated that if GST liability existed in the first scenario, he proposed to establish a furniture manufacturing unit under the composition scheme and purchase wood from unregistered suppliers, seeking clarification on the applicability of RCM to such purchases.
