TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision was not taken by same members of AAR who have heard the case - This is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ruling of the AAR, Rajasthan is set aside matter is remanded back to AAR to decide the application de-novo after all the contentions of the appellant. - SH. MAHENDRA RANGA, AND DR. RAVI KUMAR SURPUR, MEMBER Present for the Appellant : Shri Pradeep Jain, CA (Proceedings under Section 101 of the Central GST Act, 2017 read with Section 101 of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017) At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central GST Act, 2017 and the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 are same barring a few exceptions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central GST Act, 2017 would also mean a reference to corresponding provisions of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the CGST Act') read with Section 100 of the Rajasthan Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the RGST Act') by the Appellant on the portal on 20.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Hon'ble SC judgment in the case of State of West Bengal VS Calcutta Club Limited [Civil Appeal No. 4184 of 2009] and have contended that as service tax was not leviable on the services provided by a club to its member under erstwhile service tax regime and the same analogy should also apply in GST regime. The Appellant have also taken shelter of Section 7(1)(A) and Schedule II of CGST/ RGST Act to discriminate between Goods and Services and contended that as per Schedule II, only the supply of goods by the club to its members is a taxable event under GST Act. In this respect, the Appellant submitted that the analogy adopted by the Apex Court is equally relevant and applicable in the GST era. 5(ii) that the contentions of Service Tax Authorities before the Supreme Court in [Civil Appeal No. 4184 of 2009] were that the reliance placed by the Jharkhand and Gujarat High Court on the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Young Men's Indian Association is misplaced as in service tax laws, the principle of mutuality in case of incorporated entities has been dispensed with. The Appellant submitted that it was pleaded by the authorities that with the introduction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that no service tax is leviable on the services provided by incorporated clubs to its members by analyzing the said definition and so the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable in the GST regime also. They levy of GST is not correct and the impugned Order pronounced by AAR, Rajasthan deserves to be quashed. 5(viii) that the impugned Order has also placed reliance on the proposed amendment to Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 which reads as follows:- Section 7 Scope of supply - (1) For the purposes of this Act. the expression supply includes- (a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business; (aa) the activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its members or constituents or vice-versa, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Explanation .- For the purposes of this clause, it is hereby clarified that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss the decision within 90 days from the date of receipt of application. But it has been passed after almost one and half year from the date of receipt of application Even the hearing took place on 15/07/2020. Hence, such a decision is not legally sustainable. The hearing took place on 15.07.2020 and it was heard by Member (Central Tax) Shi J. P. Meena and Member (State Tax) Sh. Hemant Jain. But the decision was pronounced by Sh. J.P. Meena, Member (Central Tax) and Sh. M.S. Kavia, Member (State Tax). Thus, the decision has not been taken by the members who heard the case. Hence, it is against the principal of natural justice, thus, the impugned Advance Ruling is not legally maintainable and liable to be set aside. 7. Consequent upon change of both members of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, another personal hearing was held on 13.02.2024 which was attended by Sh. Pradeep Jain, CA and authorized representative of the appellant. He reiterated the submissions made in the previous hearing as enumerated above. He added the following submissions vide their letter dated 13.02.2024: The Advance Ruling has held that the retrospective amendment has been made vide Finance Act 2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
