Case Law Details
In re Saharanpur Smart City Limited (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh)
Explore the eligibility criteria for GST advance rulings as Saharanpur Smart City Limited’s application is examined by GST AAR Uttar Pradesh. Discover key findings.
Introduction: Saharanpur Smart City Limited, a registered GST assessee, sought a GST advance ruling through its application dated 06.04.2023. The application focused on the eligibility of the company to receive an advance ruling. This article delves into the key aspects of the application and the subsequent discussion and findings by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh.
Background: Saharanpur Smart City Limited, with its administrative building located in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, filed an application seeking clarity on certain GST-related queries. The company is registered under GST with GSTN: 09AAZCS9204J1ZI.
Key Queries Raised: The applicant sought an advance ruling on the following questions:
1. Whether the issues raised in the application fall under the purview of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
2. Clarification on the eligibility of the applicant for an advance ruling based on the nature of the queries raised.
Declaration by the Applicant: The applicant declared that the issues raised in the application were neither pending nor decided in any proceedings under the provisions of the Act.
Comments and Verification: The application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise, Division-Saharanpur, for comments and verification. Proper officer Deputy Commissioner, UPGST, sector-10 Saharanpur, provided comments through letter no. 04 dated 18.04.2023.
Personal Hearing: A personal hearing was granted to the applicant on 27.04.2023, attended by Shri Amerender Gautam, Executive Engineer, and authorized representative of the applicant. During the hearing, the applicant reiterated the submissions made in the application.
Discussion and Findings: The Authority for Advance Ruling examined the application in the context of Section 95 of the CGST Act 2017. It was observed that the applicant had ticked several issues on which advance ruling was sought, including those related to classification, applicability of notifications, time and value of supply, input tax credit, liability to pay tax, registration requirement, and determination of supply.
Eligibility Criteria: The ruling highlighted that, as per Section 95(a) of the CGST Act 2017, only the supplier of goods or services can file an application for advance ruling. Saharanpur Smart City Limited, being the receiver of goods/services provided by Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, did not meet the definition of an applicant for advance ruling.
Ruling: As a result, the application was not admitted for consideration or ruling on merits. The ruling concluded that Saharanpur Smart City Limited did not fall under the definition of advance ruling.
Validity and Jurisdiction: The ruling is valid only within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh. It is subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the Act.
Conclusion: This ruling sheds light on the criteria for eligibility to seek a GST advance ruling and emphasizes the importance of aligning with the defined roles of applicants and suppliers in the context of the CGST Act 2017.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
ORDER UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 & UNDER SECTION 98 (4) OF THE UPGST ACT, 2017
1. M/S Saharanpur Smart City Limited, Administrative Building, 0, First, Nagar Nigam Saharanpur Campus, Gurudwara Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, 247001 (here in after referred to as the applicant) is a registered assessee under GST having GSTN: 09AAZCS9204J1ZI.
2. The applicant has submitted an application for Advance Ruling dated 06.04.2023 enclosing dully filled Form ARA-01 (the application form for Advance Ruling) along with annexure and attachments. The applicant in his application has sought advance ruling on following question-
3. As per declaration given by the applicant in Form ARA-01, the issue raised by the applicant is neither pending nor decided in any proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act, against the applicant.
The applicant has submitted that-
Sr. |
Name of Smart Road | TC No. and Date | Supervision Charges |
GST Amount | Total Amount |
1 | Railway Road & Court Road- 1 | 556/08.02.2022 | 4906236.00 | 20311816.00 | 25218052.00 |
2 | Old Municipal Road | 861/05.03.2022 | 175511.00 | 726616.00 | 902127.00 |
3 | Gurudwara Road | 862/05.03.2022 | 204919.00 | 848364.00 | 1053283.00 |
4 | Lakkad Market Road | 1164/30.03.2022 | 705890.00 | 2922383.00 | 3628273.00 |
Total | 5992556.00 | 24809179.00 | 30801735.00 |
4. The applicant has submitted their interpretation of law as under-
5. As per declaration given by the applicant in Form ARA-01, the issue raised by the applicant is neither pending nor decided in any proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act, against the applicant.
6. The application for advance ruling was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise, Division-Saharanpur vide letter dated 19.04.2023 to offer their comments/views/verification report on the matter. Through letter no 04 dated 18.04.2023 proper officer Deputy Commissioner, UPGST, sector-10 Saharanpur has provided his comments.
7. The applicant was granted a personal hearing on 27.04.2023 which was attended by Shri Amerender Gautam, Executive Engineer, the authorized representative of the applicant during which he reiterated the submissions made in the application of advance ruling.
DISCUSSION AND FINDING
8. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the UPGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the UPGST Act. Further for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, a reference to such a similar provision under the CGST Act / UPGST Act would be mentioned as being under the `CGST Act’.
9. We have gone through the Form GST ARA-01 filed by the applicant and observed that the applicant has ticked following issues on which advance ruling required-
(1) classification of any goods or services or both;
(2) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
(3) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
(4) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
(5) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
(6) whether applicant is required to be registered;
(7) 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 would like to examine whether the issue raised in the application is squarely covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017 or not. For this we would like to examine this matter in light of definitions of Advance Ruling under section 95 of the CGST Act 2017 and the same is reproduced as under:
Section 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 sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub-section (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant;
(b) —Appellate Authority means the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling referred to in section 99;
(c) —applicant means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act;
The meaning of the applicant defined in sub-section (c) of section 95 should be derived only in consonance with sub-section (a) of Section 95 of the CGST Act 2017.
We find that Applicant M/S Saharanpur Smart City Limited is receiver of the Goods/Services provided by the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. In light of subsection (a) of Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only supplier of the services can file Application for Advance Ruling. Accordingly, we do not admit the application for consideration/ruling on merits as applicant does not fall under the definition of Advance Ruling.
10. Accordingly, we pass the ruling as under:
RULING
No ruling can be given in the matter as discussed above.
11. This ruling is valid only within the jurisdiction of Authority for Advance Ruling Uttar Pradesh and subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the Act.