ADVANCE RULING NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR CONCLUDED SUPPLIES:SAI ENTERPRISES VS RAAR RAJASTHAN

ADVANCE RULING NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR CONCLUDED SUPPLIES:SAI ENTERPRISES VS RAAR RAJASTHAN

RAJASTHAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Before the Bench of:

1.Sh. Mahendra Ranga, Member (Central Tax)

2. Sh. Ravi Kumar Surpur, Member (State Tax)

Case Title :-M/s Sai Enterprises

(GST AAAR RAJASTHAN)

Appeal No. RAJ/AAAR/APP/02/2022-23

Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR 2022-23/05 dated 01.06.2022

Date of Judgement/Order- 10th November 2023

IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS

Para Number 3.4- As regards question (a) above, the Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the words “or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity” has been omitted at serial number 3, in column (3), in the heading “Description of Services” in the Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated the 28th June, 2017 vide aforesaid Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.11.2021 which resulted as withdrawn of exemption from tax from 01.01.2022. Thus, as on date, no exemption is applicable on Pure services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) provided to the Government Entity by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution. Hence, applicant is not eligible to avail the said exemption from tax.

Further, the Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the applicant had applied for Advance Ruling on 16.11 2021 in respect of availability of benefits of Notification No 2017-Central Tay (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for the supplies effected upto 30.04.2021 against Work Order No. JPD/SE(TW) XEN (TW-III)/TN-483/D/5016 dated 31.10.2019 However as per provisions of Section 95 (a) of CGST Act, 2017, an Advance Ruling can only be provided in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant & the RAAR vide order dated 01.06.2022 pronounced the ruling as under-

As the question posed by the applicant is related to supplies undertaken by them prior to the date of filing of the application for Advance Ruling before the Authority thus, no ruling is being pronounced on the question under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017.

Para Number 4.6- That in light of above, they submitted that the application made Ibr Advance Ruling on 16-11-2021 for the work undertaken for period from 01.11.2019 to 30.04.2021 is as per the provisions of GST law within the meaning of Advance Ruling as defined under Section 95(a) of CGST Act. 2017

Para Number 6.4- In the instant case, we find that the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan held that the supply is not covered under Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017. On the other hand, the Appellant has contested & relied upon the Flyer issued by the Directorate General of Taxpayer services, CBEC on the topic ‘GST Advance Ruling mechanism in GST. We observe that the referred Flyer has no statutory status. It reflects the prima facie understanding of the authors about the provisions of law. There is a possibility of the authors of such documents missing finer points. Therefore, such documents, though good guides, cannot be treated as final words about the provisions of law. Levy & Collection of GST or any tax is always governed by statutory provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur V/s M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industries reported at 2008(231) ELT 22 (SC) held that a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law. Likewise a Flyer has no binding value so far as it is contrary to the specific provisions of law.

Para Number 6.5- We note that the provisions of Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017 read as under:-“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:” (emphasis applied)

Para Number 6.6- The law, therefore, covers two kinds of supplies under the purview of the AR mechanism:

(1) Supplies being undertaken – meaning thereby supplies which have begun, but not concluded. Once the supply has been concluded, it will cease to be covered by the term “being undertaken”.

(2) Proposed to be undertaken in the instant case the supplies have already been concluded. Thus, as the name implies, the pronouncement with respect to them shall no longer be in the nature of “Advance”. As such, these supplies cannot be covered by the Advance Ruling Mechanism.

Therefore, we hold that the Authority for Advance Ruling. Rajasthan is right on not pronouncing the Ruling on Merits

ORDER

In view of the above discussion and findings, we hold that the Ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan vide Order dated 01.06.2021 is right and needs no interference at this forum and we uphold the same. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.