In re Bell Medicare (GST AAR Tamil Nadu)
Summary : The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling held that Bell Medicare’s application seeking a ruling on its tenant’s input tax credit (ITC) on debit notes for past commercial rent was not maintainable under Sections 95(a), 97(2)(d) and 103 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority left the tenant’s substantive eligibility for credit undecided.
Bell Medicare’s proprietor, G. Sanjay, supplied aluminium scrap and also let out commercial property. He said that he had billed the rent in his individual capacity without quoting the proprietorship’s GSTIN or charging GST, believing that the rental turnover qualified separately for the ₹20 lakh threshold. He later took the view that the rental receipts had to be included in aggregate turnover under Section 22 of the CGST Act. According to the application, the tenant had begun paying GST under reverse charge and taking credit, treating the lessor as unregistered.
To regularise GST on the earlier rent, the applicant issued five debit notes to ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. (Tooling Division) in September and November 2025 for invoices from FY 2020–21 through September 2024. It issued one debit note on 27 September 2025 to Parafine Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. for August and September 2024. The applicant reported the notes in its October and December 2025 GSTR-1 returns and paid GST through ITC in its GSTR-3B returns. It said that Parafine Chem accepted the note and took credit, while ATC Tires disputed the debit notes and declined to pay the GST charged, despite the notes appearing in GSTR-2B.
The applicant relied on the Finance Act, 2020 amendment to Section 16(4) and CBIC Circular No. 160/16/2021-GST dated 20 September 2021. It argued that the debit note date determined the relevant financial year for the ITC time limit and that FY 2025–26 therefore applied. At the hearing on 21 July 2026, its representatives contended that ATC Tires could take ITC until November 2026. In later submissions, the applicant argued that Section 97 did not restrict applications to the person claiming the credit and cited the Tamil Nadu AAAR ruling in Erode Infrastructures.
The AAR observed that admissibility of ITC was a listed subject under Section 97(2)(d), but read that provision with Section 95(a). It held that a supplier could seek a ruling on its own obligations and on ITC on inward supplies used for the supply in question. The application here concerned credit that the tenant might claim on the applicant’s outward supply. The AAR found Erode Infrastructures inapplicable to that question.
The AAR also noted that Section 103 makes an advance ruling binding on the applicant and the concerned or jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. It declined the request to send the ruling to the tenant because Section 98(7) provides for communication to the applicant and the specified officers. The operative ruling held the application on the tenant’s ITC on the debit notes to be not maintainable.
Cases Discussed
- In re Erode Infrastructures Private Limited — 2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 222, Order No. TN/AAAR/07/2021(AR), dated 05.03.2021 (GST AAAR Tamil Nadu). Bell Medicare cited the ruling in support of its right as supplier to apply. The AAR found it inapplicable to a supplier’s request for a ruling on its tenant’s ITC.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMIL NADU
M/s Bell Medicare, having place of business at 3/343 A, 10th KM Tiruchendur Road, Krishnapuram, Tirunelveli-627 011 (hereinafter called as the “Applicant”) has registered with GSTIN 33ADLPS1834J1ZC under the Goods and Services Tax Act. They have filed this application for advance ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, and corresponding provisions under the Section 97 of TNGST Act, 2017. The Applicant has made a payment of application fees of Rs.10,000/- under sub rule (1) of Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and TNGST Rules, 2017.
2. Statement of Facts having a bearing on the questions raised
2.1 The Applicant, Shri G. Sanjay Proprietor of the unit M/s. Bell Medicare is engaged in the supply of goods namely Aluminium Scrap falling under heading 760200 of GST Tariff Act 2017. The proprietor of the said unit is also supplying Renting of immovable property service for commercial purposes on his own account to the recipient of Service M/s. ATC Tires Pvt Ltd, Nochikulam village, Tirunelveli for a rent fixed on mutual agreement from the year 2020-21 onwards.
2.2 The applicant proprietorship unit raises invoice claiming lease/rent amount on his own account in the individual capacity without the mention of the GSTIN number on the bonafide belief that the value of consideration received form the services supplied on his own account in the individual capacity need not be clubbed/ included with the turnover of his unit supplying goods for the reason that exemption up to twenty lakhs is available to services supplied.
2.3 The applicant proprietor of the unit came to understand that as per the clause (i) of explanation to sub-section (4) of section 22 of CGST /TNGST Act 2017 that the aggregate turnover shall include all supplies made by the taxable person. The total consideration received for the supply of renting of immovable property service for commercial purpose on his own account has to be added / included with the total turnover of his applicant proprietorship unit supplying the goods.
2.4 The applicant proprietorship unit raised invoices for the lease/ rent amount only periodically and no GST has been charged on the value of consideration shown in the invoice on the lessee/ tenant. The omission of charging the GST amount in the invoice for rent and also the omission in declaring the said turnover in the GSTR 1 and GSTR3B occurred in the previous years from 2020-21 for the reason of bona fide belief as stated above. The practice of charging of lease / rent amount only without charging GST amount continued till July 2025.
2.5 Their lessee / tenant unit started payment of GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the lease / rent amount paid considering the lessor, the supplier of service, is an unregistered person consequent to the amendment made in the Notification No.13/2017 -CT(R) date 28.06.2017. The lessee/ tenant also availed ITC of the tax paid under RCM as a registered person. The applicant proprietorship unit after realizing the mistake of omission in the declaration of taxable turnover of the rent/lease amount received and also the payment of GST payable on such taxable value, decided to regularize the matter in the current period for which the applicant proprietorship unit raised debit notes on the underlying invoices of the rent charged /collected quoting the GST amount payable on the rent amount charged / collected year wise on the unit M/s. ATC Tires Pvt Ltd; (Tooling division), Nochikulam village, Tirunelveli for the period from 2020-21 to 2024-25 (up to September 2024) on 27.09.2025 and on 29.11.2025. Likewise, the applicant raised one debit note on the unit M/s Parafine Chem Industries Pvt Ltd, Bangalore for the months of August and September 2024 on 27.09.2025.
2.6 After the issue of debit notes on 27.9.2025 and on 29.11.2025 on the above stated two recipients of service, one recipient of service namely M/s.ATC Tires (P) Ltd; Tirunelveli have disputed and denied the raising of debit notes charging the GST amount for the past periods and also informed their inability to pay the tax amount charged in the debit note at a later date for the earlier period for the reason that they could not avail ITC on the tax amount charged in the debit notes and paid to the Government as per the debit notes dated 27.9.2025 and on 29.11.2025. The applicant proprietorship unit had discussion with the said two recipient of service units in an elaborate manner explaining the changes made in the provision of section 16(4) of CGST/TNGST Act 2017 read with the clarification issued by CBIC vide their circular No.160/16/2021-GST dated 20-09-2021 along with illustrations.
2.7 After the amendment made in the provisions of section 16(4) of CGST / TNGST Act 2017 with effect from 1-1-2021 read with the clarification vide circular dated 20.09.2021 cited above, the tax amount charged and paid to the Government through debit note which was issued /raised in the subsequent period on the underlying invoices is eligible for availing ITC and the date of issue of debit note is to be considered for availing credit of the tax paid through the debit notes in regard to the provisions of section 16(4) of CGST/TNGST Act 2017.
2.8 All of the 6 Nos. of debit notes (5 Nos. on M/s ATC Tires Pvt Ltd, Tirunelveli & 1 No. on M/s. Parafine Chem Industries Pvt Ltd.) are duly declared and entered in the relevant table of the GSTR1 return of the applicant proprietorship unit for the months of October 2025 and December 2025 in which the taxable value (turnover of services) along with the tax amount payable on such debit note have been correctly declared in compliance with the GST provisions. The tax amount payable on the turnover of the services declared has been paid by the applicant while filing the GSTR3B return for the months of October 2025 and December 2025.
2.9 The applicant has filed the present application for advance ruling seeking clarification on the following question:
Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid on the debit notes issued in the subsequent period i.e., on 27-09-2025 in the financial year 2025-26 on the underlying invoices relating to the period from 2020-21 to 2024-25 (up to September 2024) by the applicant proprietorship unit on the unit M/s. ATC Tires Pvt Ltd -Tooling Division, Old Door No. 3/343 D, New No. 6/167, Plot no. 76/2B, 10th Km Tiruchendur Road, Nochikulam Panchayat Krishnapuram Village, Tirunelveli — 627011 (5 Nos.) and on the unit M/s. Parafine Chem Industries Pvt Ltd, Shed No.3/343 Survey No. 83/2, 10th Km Tiruchendur Road Krishnapuram Village, Tirunelveli -627011 (1 No.).
3. Applicant’s interpretation of law:
3.1 The Applicant has stated that GST includes supply of goods or supply of services or both and that for classifying a transaction whether as supply of goods or supply of service there are some norms available in the Schedule II formulated as per Section 7(1A) of CGST Act 2017. Chapter V of the GST Act 2017 deals with the provisions of the availability of input tax credit of tax paid on the invoice or debit note. The dispute in this case is the admissibility of input tax credit of the tax paid through debit note raised in the subsequent period of the underlying invoice and not in the same financial year.
3.2 The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 16 of CGST /TNGST Act 2017 specifies as, “ Notwithstanding anything contained in this section no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless, (a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act, or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed.; (aa) the details of the invoice or debit note referred to in clause (a) has been furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note in the manner specified under Section 37;”
3.3 The provisions of sub-section (4) of section 16 of CGST / TNGST Act 2017 reads / specifies as,” A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the thirtieth day of November following the end of financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.” With effect from 1-1-2021 the provisions of section 16(4) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017 were amended vide Finance Act, 2020 so as to delink the date of issuance of debit note from the date of issuance of the underlying invoice for purposes of availing input tax credit.
3.4 CBIC vide circular No.160/16/2021-GST dated 20-9-2021 had clarified that “the intent of law as specified in the memorandum explaining the Finance Bill 2020 states that, Clause 118 of the bill seeks to amend sub-section (4) of section 16 of the Goods and Services Tax Act so as to delink the date of issuance of debit note from the date of issuance of the underlying invoice for purposes of availing ITC. Accordingly, it is clarified that
(a) with effect from 1-1-2021 in case of debit notes, the date of issuance of debit note (not the date of underlying invoice) shall determine the relevant financial year for the purpose of section 16(4) of the GST Act.
(b) The availment of ITC on debit notes in respect of amended provision shall be applicable from. 1-1-2021. Accordingly, for availment of ITC on or after 1-1-2021 in respect of debit notes issued either prior to or after 1-1-2021 the eligibility for availment of ITC will be governed by the amended provision of section 16(4) whereas any ITC availed prior to 1-1-2021 in respect of debit notes shall be governed under the provisions of section 16(4) as it existed before the said amendment on 1-1-2021.
3.5 In this present case, the Applicant had submitted that though the invoices are relating to the period from 2020-21 to 2024-25 (up to September 2024) in respect of the recipient of service namely M/s. ATC Tires Pvt Ltd, Nochikulam village, Tirunelveli the debit notes charging the omitted GST amount on the said taxable service of renting of immovable property was made on 27.9.2025 and 29.11.2025 i.e. in the financial year 2025-26 and the same was declared in the GSTR 1 return for the month of October 2025 and December 2025 and tax has been paid accordingly while filing the GSTR 3B return for the months of October 2025 and December 2025. The applicant states that since the debit notes have been issued in the financial year 2025-26, the relevant financial year for availment of ITC in respect of the said debit notes (5 Nos) shall be the financial year 2025-26 in terms of the amended provisions of section 16(4) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.
3.6 The Applicant had stated that in respect of the invoices relating to the months of August and September 2024 pertaining to the recipient of service namely M/s. Parafine Chem Industries Pvt Ltd, Bangalore, the debit note charging the omitted GST amount on the said taxable service of renting of immovable property was issued on 27.09.2025 i.e. in the financial year 2025-26 and the same was declared in the GSTR 1 return for the month of October 2025 and tax has been paid accordingly while filing the GSTR 3B return for the month of October 2025. Since the debit note has been issued in the financial year 2025-26 the relevant financial year for availment of ITC in respect of the said debit note (1 No.) shall be the financial year 2025-26 in terms of the amended provisions of section 16(4) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017 and this recipient of service has admitted the issue of debit note and availed the ITC reflected in the GSTR2B. But the recipient of service M/s. ATC Tires (P) Ltd has not availed the ITC though the details of debit notes are reflected in their GSTR2B.
3.7 The Applicant further states that contrary to the above stated legal position the service recipient unit namely M/s ATC Tires Pvt Ltd, Tirunelveli are not satisfied in the position of availability in the availment of input tax credit in respect of the debit notes issued on 27.9.2025 and 29.11.2025 in the financial year 2025-26 and they are disputing the same. The wrong interpretation in the availability of ITC on the debit notes by the said service recipient units leads to unwanted disputes between the service supplier unit and the service recipient unit in the settlement of the tax amount paid by the supplier of service to the Government resulting in heavy loss to the supplier unit and also losing the opportunity of availing ITC by the said service recipient unit.
3.8 Under the circumstances and in order to settle the dispute as stated above, to avoid heavy loss to the supplier of service unit and to avoid losing the ITC benefit by the said recipient of service, the applicant proprietorship unit requires Advance Ruling on the admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid on the debit notes issued in the subsequent period ie. on 27.9.2025 and 29.11.2025 in the financial year 2025-26 on the underlying invoices relating to the period from 2020-21 to 2024-25 (up to September 2024) by the applicant proprietorship unit on the unit M/s. ATC Tires Pvt Ltd, Nochikulam village, Tirunelveli (5 Nos).
The Applicant requested that the order of the Advance Ruling Authority may be intimated to the recipient of supply.
4. The applicant is under the administrative control of State. The concerned authorities of the Centre and State were addressed to report if there are any pending proceedings against the applicant on the issues raised by the applicant in the ARA application and for comments on the issues raised. As no remarks have been received from the State Authority and Centre authority, it is assumed that there are no pending proceedings against the applicant on the issues raised by the applicant in the ARA application.
5. Personal Hearing
5.1 The applicant was given an opportunity to be heard in person on 21.07.2026.
Shri. Uthanu Mallian, I.R.S., Assistant Commissioner of C.Ex. (Retd), Consultant and Shri. Sanjay G, Proprietor appeared for the personal hearing as the authorized representatives (AR) of M/s. Bell Medicare. The AR reiterated the submissions made in their application for advance ruling. AR also submitted written submissions.
5.2 The AR stated that the applicant is a proprietor trading Aluminium scrap and steel products. The Proprietor had given 2 immovable properties for rent to M/s. ATC Tires Pvt Ltd for commercial purposes but had not paid GST on the Renting of Immovable Property Service during the period 2020-21 to 2024-25. The Applicant had raised 5 Debit Notes for the same in September 2025 and November 2025 and filed GSTR1 and paid GST and filed GSTR3B subsequently. The AR stated that their tenant is not accepting the same and not paying the GST amount even though the same could be availed as ITC by them.
5.3. The AR referred to the Circular giving clarification as to the amendment of Section 16 (4) of CGST Act, by which the date of issuance of Debit Note shall determine the relevant financial year for availing ITC. The AR stated that ITC can be availed by their tenant till November 2026. The AR requested the ruling regarding the eligibility of ITC to their tenant.
5.4 The AR was informed that as per Section 95(a) of CGST Act, advance ruling can be given to the applicant on questions specified under Section 97(2) in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. The AR was informed that Advance Ruling can be given regarding the eligibility of ITC pertaining to the Applicant only. It cannot be given for the applicant’s tenant. The AR had nothing further to add.
5.5 Subsequently, the Applicant vide email dated 23.07.2026 had furnished a letter stating that Section 97 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 allows an applicant to file an application for advance ruling on any of the questions under Section 97 (2) and shall be in respect of (d) admissibility of input tax credit of the tax paid or deemed to have been paid. There is no specific condition in the Advance Ruling provisions that only the person who is to claim/avail ITC can apply for Advance Ruling in regard to admissibility of ITC of the tax paid or deemed to have been paid. Any applicant who may be supplier or recipient desirous of obtaining advance ruling may apply as per the provisions,
5.6 The Applicant vide their letter dated 03.08.2026 sent through email had referred to the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Tamil Nadu in the case of M/s. Erode Infrastructures (P) Ltd {2021 (50) GSTL 222}, the supplier of goods or services can seek Advance Ruling as applicant which is ratified by other AAR also. In the present case, the applicant is the supplier of service and requested that the Advance ruling sought may be issued to him.
6. Discussions and Findings:
6.1 We have carefully examined the submissions made by the applicant in their advance ruling application and the submissions made during the personal hearing. We have also considered the issue involved, the relevant facts and the applicant’s submission / interpretation of law in respect of question on which the advance ruling is sought.
6.2 We find that the query is liable for admission as it gets covered under Section 97 (2) (d) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 under “Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid”.
6.3 We note that the Applicant had failed to pay GST on Renting of Immovable Property Service for the period 2020-21 to 2024-25 (up to September 2024). However, the Applicant had raised Debit Notes on his Tenant, M/s.ATC Tires Pvt Ltd during September 2025 and November 2025 for the GST payable on the Rent for the years 2020-21 to 2024-25. The Applicant has filed GSTR1 returns including the said Debit Notes and paid the applicable GST through ITC and filed GSTR 3B returns for the months of October 2025 and December 2025.
6.4 This being the case, the Applicant has filed an application for advance ruling on the admissibility of Input tax credit for their Tenant, M/s.ATC Tires Pvt Ltd. in respect of the Debit Notes raised by the Applicant. The Applicant has requested the eligibility of his tenant to avail input tax credit against the said debit notes. The applicant has requested that a copy of the Ruling to be sent to his Tenant.
6.5 To answer the applicant’s query, let us go in to the definition of an applicant as given under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017.
“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 1[or the National Appellate Authority] to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub- section (1) of section 1002[or of section 101C], 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;
(d) ” application” means an application made to the Authority under sub-section
(1) of section 97;
(e) “Authority” means the Authority for Advance Ruling referred to in section 96;
3[(f) “National Appellate Authority” means the National Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling referred to in section 101A]”
As per the definition of Advance Ruling, Advance Ruling is a decision provided to an applicant on questions in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In other words, the application should be in respect of questions related to the supply of goods or services undertaken by the applicant. As the Supplier is the person making the supply, they can only seek a ruling on their own liabilities and obligations such as the rate of tax, classification, time and value of supply. In this case, the applicant is the supplier and his tenant is the receiver. The applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only on the issues relating to his own liabilities and obligations. The Applicant cannot seek Advance Ruling for his tenant. Matters pertaining to Applicant’s supply of goods or services can only be sought as Advance Ruling as per Section 95(a) of CGST Act, 2017.
6.6 Let us go in to the Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 which reads as follows:
“Section 97. Application for advance ruling.-
(1) An applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling under this Chapter may make an application in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the advance ruling is sought.
(2) 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;
(b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
(c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;
(g) 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.”
As per Section 97 (2) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017, the Advance Ruling can be sought for admissibility of Input Tax Credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid.
The eligibility of Input Tax Credit rests solely with the receiver of the supply not the supplier. In the present case, the applicant is the supplier of services, i.e. Renting of Immovable Property Service to their tenant, M/s. ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd, who is the receiver. The applicant shall question the admissibility of Input Tax Credit in respect of supplies received by them. In other words, Section 97(2)(d) applies to the Input Tax Credit being claimed by the applicant on their own inward supplies, not on outward supplies made to their customers. In other words, the applicant can seek Advance Ruling regarding admissibility of Input Tax Credit on what they buy, not whether their customer can claim ITC on what the applicant sells.
Section 95(a) by definition ‘advance ruling’ has specified that the applicant can only seek a ruling about the supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant i.e. the applicant is the supplier in the supply in question. Accordingly, all the question the applicant can ask as specified in Section 97 pertain only to him. Specifically, Section 97(2) (d) pertains to the admissibility of Input Tax Credit of tax paid of deemed to have been paid by the applicant (i.e. applicant as per the Act). This question would deal with the admissibility of ITC on all the inputs/input services/ capital goods etc. used by the applicant (i.e. applicant as per the Act) to make or propose to make the supply in question.
As such, the admissibility of Input Tax Credit pertaining to the Applicant’s supply of goods or services can only be sought as Advance Ruling as per Section 97 (2) (d) of CGST Act, 2017.
6.7 Further, we refer to Section 103 which speaks about applicability of Advance Ruling as follows:
“Section 103. Applicability of advance ruling. –
(1) The advance ruling pronounced by the Authority or the Appellate Authority under this Chapter shall be binding only-
(a) on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub section (2) of section 97 for advance ruling;
(b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant”.
As per Section 103 of CGST Act, 2017, the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Authority shall be binding only on the Applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer. Therefore, a ruling issued to a supplier regarding a customer’s tax treatment holds no legal binding value for the customer.
As such, Advance Ruling given shall be binding on the Applicant only and shall not be binding on the Applicant’s tenant.
6.8 Let us also look in to Section 98 which lays down the procedure for giving Advance Ruling
“Section 98. Procedure on receipt of application.-
(1) On receipt of an application, the Authority shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to the concerned officer and, if necessary, call upon him to furnish the relevant records:
Provided that where any records have been called for by the Authority in any case, such records shall, as soon as possible, be returned to the said concerned officer.
(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorised representative and the concerned officer or his authorised representative, by order, either admit or reject the application:
Provided that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act:
Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of hearing has been given to the applicant:
Provided also that where the application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be specified in the order.
(3) A copy of every order made under sub-section (2) shall be sent to the applicant and to the concerned officer.
(4) Where an application is admitted under sub-section (2), the Authority shall, after examining such further material as may be placed before it by the applicant or obtained by the Authority and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the applicant or his authorised representative as well as to the concerned officer or his authorised representative, pronounce its advance ruling on the question specified in the application.
(5) Where the members of the Authority differ on any question on which the advance ruling is sought, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and make a reference to the Appellate Authority for hearing and decision on such question.
(6) The Authority shall pronounce its advance ruling in writing within ninety days from the date of receipt of application.
(7) A copy of the advance ruling pronounced by the Authority duly signed by the members and certified in such manner as may be prescribed shall be sent to the applicant, the concerned officer and the jurisdictional officer after such pronouncement”,
Further, Section 98 (7) of CGST Act, 2017 states that a copy of the Advance Ruling shall be sent to the applicant, the concerned officer and the jurisdictional officer. In the present case, we find that the Applicant has requested that the Advance Ruling be sent to his Tenant. This cannot be done as per Section 98 (7) of CGST Act, 2017 as Ruling can be sent to the Applicant only and not to his Tenant.
The Applicant had referred to the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling Order in respect of M/s.Erode Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. We find that the said case is not applicable to the present issue and does not support the applicant’s claim.
7. In view of the above, we rule as under:
Ruling
Advance Ruling sought for by the Applicant regarding the admissibility of Input Tax Credit on the Debit Notes issued by the Applicant to his Tenant is not maintainable as per Section 95 (a), 97(2)(d) and 103 of CGST Act, 2017.
