GST AAAR RAJASTHAN:-RBSE, AJMER ELIGIBILITY OF EDUCATIONAL BOARDS TO SEEK GST ADVANCE RULING

GST AAAR RAJASTHAN:- RBSE AJMER ELIGIBILITY OF EDUCATIONAL BOARDS TO SEEK GST ADVANCE RULING

RAJASTHAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Before the AAAR comprising of:

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

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

BRIEF OF FACT:-

Appellant, Board of Secondary Education (RBSE), Ajmer, is a government educational authority providing examination-related services to students. The Appellant sought Advance Ruling on whether services supplied to them (like printing of question papers, OMR sheets, result processing, computer maintenance, etc.) are GST-exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and subsequent amendments.

IMPORTENT PARA:-

PARA NO-6 The AAR, Rajasthan held that Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 allows the authority only to decide on matters or on questions in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant i.e. in the subject case this application can be entertained only if the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant themselves. In the instant case, the supplies of services are being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken not by the Appellant but by various supplier(s) to the Appellant. These suppliers are distinct persons as per the provisions of the GST Act.

PARA NO-7 The AAR found that the Appellant are not a supplier in the instant case. As per the contracts, the Appellant are recipient of services supplied by various suppliers. Therefore, the AAR, Rajasthan held that they cannot entertain the subject application; hence, without going into the merits of the case, they rejected the application of the Appellant seeking ruling on questions stated hereinabove being not maintainable.

GROUNDS

PARA NO-8 Being aggrieved against the Order of Advance Ruling dated 17.06.2022, the Appellant filed appeal on the following grounds:-

• That the Authority for Advance Ruling has erred in law in dismissing the application of the Appellant on the sole technical ground that the applicant (now Appellant) are not a supplier of the good or services.
• That the Authority for Advance Ruling have failed to take into consideration meaning of applicant under the definition of advance ruling under Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017 in Para 6 of Findings, Analysis & Conclusion.
• That an Applicant can be made by any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this act. Furthermore, person defined under Section 2(84) (g) of the CGST Act, 2017 includes any corporation established by or under any Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act or a Government company as defined in clause (45) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, Board of Secondary Education comes under the definition of person.

• That Authority for Advance Ruling in Para 7 of Findings, Analysis, and Conclusion has erred in law in considering the meaning of supplier.

• That as per Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, 2017 the definition of the recipient of supply of goods or services or both, means—

1. Where a consideration is payable for the supply of goods or services or both, the person who is liable to pay that consideration;

2. Where no consideration is payable for the supply of goods, the person to whom the goods are delivered or made available, or to whom possession or use of the goods is given or made available; and

3. Where no consideration is payable for the supply of a service, the person to whom the service is rendered and any reference to a person to whom a supply is made shall be construed as a reference to the recipient of the supply and shall include an agent acting as such on behalf of the recipient in relation to the goods or services or both supplied;
4. Furthermore, as per Section 2(102) of the CGST Act, 2017 “services” means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or it} conversion by cash or by any other mode from one form, currency or denomination to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged.

Therefore, Board of Secondary Education are supplying services to students so it falls within the ambit of supply of services as given above.

• That in Section 95 Of the CGST Act, 2017, the legislature in its wisdom has used the word in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. This definition does not make any distinction between the supplier of the goods or services or both or the recipient of goods or services or both. The recipient of the goods or services or both is also supplier of the goods or services or both so the narrow interpretation defeats the purpose of deciding the questions meant for imposition ofCGST and SGST.
• That RBSE are an Educational Institution as explained in Notification No.14/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 read with paragraph 3 explanation of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, who receive above mentioned services in Question 14 of Form GST ARA-Ol as per their own specifications fop conducting examinations. The supplier charges GST on the supply which at the end is payable and borne by the Appellant as per the normal mechanism followed in GST. The Appellant fall under the definition of Educational Institution by virtue of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which clearly exempts services provided to an Educational Institution in relation to conduct of examination. Further, the earlier Notification of exemption up to higher secondary school or equivalent has been superseded by Notification No. •02/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018. Further, Notification NO. 14/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 amended the Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 and added clarification in paragraph 3 in explanation after clause (iii) i.e “(iv) For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the Central and State Educational Boards shall be treated as Educational Institution for the limited purpose of providing services by way of conduct of exation to the students”.

PARA NO-16 We note that in the case of M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. versus West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Services Tax, the Hon ‘ble High Court, Calcutta held that :

• The said term “Applicant” has been defined in the most widest possible manner to include any person registered or desirous of obtaining a registration under the Act.
• In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant is registered under GST Law. Further, the application filed by the appellant falls under clause (b) of Section 97(2) as the appellant seeks ruling on applicability of exemption notification.
• Reliance was placed in the case of Ws. Gayatri Projects Limited & anr. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. in M.A.T. No.2027 of 2022 dated 05.01.2023, where this court held that appellants being the registered person under the law (GST Act) would fall within the definition of ‘applicant’yi even though the appellant therein were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR.
• In the present case, the appellant fulfils the eligibility to seek advance ruling.
• Accordingly, the court set aside the ruling of AAR and remanded back the matter to AAR to decide the application on merits and in accordance with the law.

PARA MO-19 In view of the above discussions, we pass the following order

ORDER

The Ruling of AAR, Rajasthan dated 17.06. 2022. is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AAR to decide the application afresh after considering the judgement dated 21.04.2023 of Hon’ble High Court , Calcutta delivered in the case M/S Anmol Industries Ltd. Versus West Bengal Authority for Advahce Ruling, Goods and Service Tax.