UMED CLUB NOT A STATE: RAJASTHAN HC CLARIFIES WRIT JURISDICTION

UMED CLUB NOT A STATE: RAJASTHAN HC CLARIFIES WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Before the AAAR comprising of:

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

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

Case Title : M/s Umed Club

(GST AAAR RAJASTHAN)

Appeal No. RAJ/AAAR/APP/11/2021-22

Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2020-21/23 dated 27.09.2021

ORDER NO. RAJ/AAAR/11/2023-24

Date of Judgment/Order-  20th febrary 2024

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Para no. 1. M/s Umed Club (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant” also), Jodhpur are engaged in providing various services such as short-term accommodation, restaurant, recreational services and have GST registration No. 08AAABU0007FIZZ. They are interalia registered under Rajasthan Society Registration Act and are incorporated club.

Para no. 2. The appellant sought Advance Ruling as to whether the services such as short-term accommodation, restaurant and recreational services provided by them to its members are taxable.

Para no. 3. The Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan in their Order dated 27.09.2021 concluded that service provided by the club to its members is taxable as per clause (aa) of sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. July 1, 2017 and pronounced that GST is payable on the services provided by clubs to its members.

Para no. 4. The appellates are now in appeal before this authority.

Para no. 10. At the outset we note that limitation in the matter stands extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for decision. We further note that the authorized representative during the hearing held on 10.01.2022 reiterated the submissions already furnished and submitted two more supplemental points. Firstly, they were unappeased that the ruling was passed after almost one and half year from the date of receipt of application whereas Authority Advance Ruling should have passed the decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of application. Secondly, they asserted that the constituent members of the AAR when the personal hearing in the matter was held were different from the members forming the AAR at the time the decision was pronounced. The decision was not taken by same members who heard the case. The appellant expressed their strong opinion that it was against the principal of natural justice.

ORDER

The Ruling of the AAR, Rajasthan dated 27.09.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to AAR to decide the application de-novo after considering all the contentions of the appellant.