Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 855 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Scope of Advance Ruling application - appellant is service recipient - construction, erection and commissioning of metro rail facility all over the state of Uttar Pradesh - Section 95 of the CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- The appellant is receiving services from M/s KESCO and opts to seek advance Ruling under Section 95 of the CGST Act 2017 as a receiver of service - It is also found that the Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that the “Applicant M/S Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited is receiver of the Goods/Services provided by M/s KESCO and under the provision of clause (a) of Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only supplier of the services can file Application for Advance Ruling and accordingly no ruling can be given in the matter.”
Needless to say that meaning of the term “applicant” as defined under clause (c) of Section 95 of the act, should be derived only in consonance with clause (a) of Section 95 of the CGST Act 2017 which clearly provides that the applicant of Advance Ruling Should be related to a taxpayer who supplies the goods or services or both or who proposes to make supplies in future. As the wordings says the “supply of goods or services or both and not the “receipt of goods or services or both”. This implies that the applicants seeking advance ruling should be suppliers of goods/services and not the recipient of goods/services.
The appellant being a service recipient is not eligible to seek advance ruling under the provisions of Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017.