Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAAR GST - 2022 (3) TMI AAAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1151 - AAAR - GSTMaintainability of application - Section 98 (2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 - Exemption from GST - Works Contract - Supply made by M/s INI Studio as Service in relation to any functions entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution - Pure services or not - exemption under Entry No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT - recipient of services or not - HELD THAT:- As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, the term “Advance Ruling” means a decision provided by the authority or appellate authority to an applicant on matters or questions specified in subsection 2 of Section 97 or subsection 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. From the submission of appellant it is amply clear that the service i.e. “Design and Comprehensive Consultancy” is to be provided by M/s INI Design Studio Pvt Ltd to the Appellant - appellant is the recipient of service in the subject case. The impugned transaction are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the appellant and therefore, we are of the view, that it is outside the purview of mandate given to the Advance Ruling Authority/ Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling. The provisions of Section 103 states that the ruling pronounced is binding only on the applicant. It is amply clears that if a recipient of supply obtains a ruling on the taxability of his inward supply of goods or services or both, the supplier of such goods or services or both is not bound by that ruling and he is free to assess the supply according to his own determination/understanding of law and hence ruling loses its relevance and applicability - Any provision of law has to be interpreted in a constructive and harmonious way keeping in mind the object of the purpose of the provision. Any interpretation, if it defeats the vary purpose of the provision of law is not only incorrect but also improper and bad in law. The present appeal is non-maintainable.
|