Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 288 - HC - GSTLocus standi to file application for Advance Ruling application - applicant is a recipient of services - Seeking ruling on payment of upfront lease premium - exempt from GST or not - rejection on the ground that the appellants have no locus standi to file such an application - HELD THAT:- The AAR in the order impugned in the writ petition has made a slight attempt to go into the aspect as to who is the applicant before the AAR seeking an advance ruling and concluded that the appellants being recipients of service is not entitled to maintain an application before the AAR. Under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in Section 95(c) the term “applicant” has been defined to mean any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act. Thus, in our view, the said term has been defined in the most widest possible manner to include any person registered or desirous of obtaining a registration under the Act. Undoubtedly, the appellants are registered under the provisions of the Act. Section 97 of the Act deals with application for advance ruling - The application filed by the appellants would fall under clause (b), Section 97(2) as the appellants seek for a ruling as regards applicability of an exemption notification no.12/2017- CGST (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017. If that be the case, it will be well within the jurisdiction of the AAR to consider the application on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of lack of locus standi - the appellants clearly fall within the definition of “applicant” as defined under Section 95(c) of the Act, therefore, the application filed by the appellants before the AAR has to decided on merits. In the case of M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited & anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. [[2023 (1) TMI 333 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]], this Court had taken note of Section 95(c) and held that the Act defines “applicant” to mean any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act and in the said case, the appellants being registered dealers under the provisions of the Act would fall within the definition of “applicant” as defined under Section 95( c) of the Act, though the appellants therein were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR. The matter is remanded back to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling to decide the application on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|