9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'YEIDA') requiring the petitioner to deposit GST at the rate of 18% on the premium Rs. 3.80 crores charged by the YEIDA against Institutional Plot H-02, Sector 22-A, YEIDA admeasuring 4,000 square meters, allotted to the petitioner on 28.04.2015. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, the case of the petitioner falls squarely within the exemption granted by the Central Government under Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), vide Notification No. 12/2017, dated 28th June, 2017 read with Notification No. 32/2017, dated 13th October, 2017. In any case, at present there exists no doubt as to the availability of exemption. Earlier YEIDA had entertained such doubt. It applied to the Authority for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of the Act vide application dated 9th March, 2018. That application was allowed by the Authority for Advance Ruling vide its order dated 06.06.2018. It has attained finality. Even otherwise, no demand of tax has been raised by the Revenue Authorities, either on YEIDA or on the petitioner. 5. As to the status of YEIDA, it has been stated that the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e whole or any part of the tax leviable thereon with effect from such date as may be specified in such notification." 10. It is also not in doubt that the Central Government issued Notification No. 12/2017, dated 28th June, 2017 under Section 11 (1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the said Notification reads as below: "Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017 G.S.R......(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby exempts the intra-State supply of services of description as specified in column (3) of the Table below from so much of the central tax leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the sid Act, as is in excess of the said tax calculated at the rate as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table, unless specified otherwise, subject to the relevant conditions as specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, namely:- Table Sl. No. Chapter, Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, does not allow for any elaborate submissions to arise. At the same time, it is a fact that YEIDA had not entertained any doubt that the disputed transaction is for execution of a lease deed for a period in excess to 30 years by a Government Industrial Development Authority. The doubt that was entertained, was with respect to availability of exemption to allotment made for public health care purpose such as to set up a Hospital or Nursing Home or Diagnostic Centre etc. 14. Thus in the application made on the prescribed form before the Authority for Advance Ruling, the YEIDA made the following disclosure against Column nos. 1, 2, 12-B, 13(3) and 14: "Application Form for Advance Ruling 1. GSTIN Number, if any/User id 09AAALT0341DIZC 2. Legal Name of Applicant YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 12. Nature of Activity (s) (proposed/present) in respect of which advance ruling is sought. B. Description (in brief) Whether the amount paid as premium and lease rent on the plots allotted to hospitals come under the ambit of GST 13. (iii) Applicability of notification issued under the provisions of the Act S. No. 41 of the notification no. 12/2017 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th; (f) whether applicant is required to be registered; (g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term." 19. The question posed by the YEIDA to the Authority for Advance Ruling clearly appears to be one that was covered under Section 97 (2) (b) and (e). Therefore, the order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling does appear to be an order within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling as has been defined under Section 95(a) of the Act. It reads:- "95. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) "advance ruling" means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority [or the National Appellate Authority] to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or subsection (1) of section 100 [or of section 101C] in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant;" 20. In view of the above, we find, the Authority for Advance Ruling has answered the query of the YEIDA in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
