2021 (7) TMI 1367 - AAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling application - Classification of services - health services provided by M/s AHEL - classification under 9983 9985 is correct or not - applicability of IGST Exemption Notification for all or certain items of contractual services rendered by M/s AHEL as per the MoU - refund of IGST with retrospective effect - If refund claim cannot be made with M/s AHEL, what is the relief available to SDSC SHAR for the ineligible financial expenditure incurred towards IGST so far? - applicability of GST on on diesel bills paid on reimbursement basis for running ambulance/power generator by M/s AHEL at SDMH, Sullurpeta. HELD THAT - An applicant can seek an advance ruling in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further, as per Section 103 (1) of the APGST Act such an Advance Ruling is binding only on the applicant and on the Officer Concerned or the jurisdictional Officer in respect of the applicant. In the present case the applicant is recipient of the services and not supplier of such services. Accordingly the application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected without going in to the merits of the case.

Issues involved:
1. SAC classification of health services provided by M/s AHEL under 9983 & 9985.
2. Applicability of IGST Exemption Notification for contractual services by M/s AHEL.
3. Claiming refund of IGST paid by SDSC, SHAR from M/s AHEL.
4. Relief available to SDSC, SHAR for ineligible financial expenditure on IGST.
5. Applicability of GST on diesel bills paid by M/s AHEL for ambulance/power generator.

Analysis:

SAC Classification of Health Services:
The applicant sought clarification on the correct SAC classification of health services provided by M/s AHEL under SACs 9983 & 9985. The applicant highlighted discrepancies in the levying of IGST by M/s AHEL despite GST exemption on healthcare services. The applicant questioned the accuracy of SAC classification, leading to confusion regarding the tax liability on the services provided.

Applicability of IGST Exemption Notification:
The applicant raised concerns about the applicability of the IGST Exemption Notification for all or certain items of contractual services rendered by M/s AHEL. Despite the exemption under the notification, M/s AHEL continued to levy IGST on various services, including reimbursement bills for diesel. This issue highlighted the need for clarity on the scope and extent of the IGST exemption for healthcare services.

Claiming Refund of IGST:
The applicant inquired about the possibility of claiming a refund of IGST paid to M/s AHEL since July 2017. The applicant sought retrospective relief from the excess IGST payments made due to the misapplication of tax rates by M/s AHEL. This issue emphasized the financial implications of incorrect tax levies and the need for rectification mechanisms.

Relief for Ineligible Financial Expenditure:
The applicant sought clarity on the relief available to SDSC, SHAR for the financial expenditure incurred towards IGST payments that were deemed ineligible. The issue raised questions about the responsibility for erroneous tax payments and the recourse available to the recipient, SDSC, SHAR, for recovering or compensating the incurred expenses.

Applicability of GST on Diesel Bills:
The applicant questioned the applicability of GST on diesel bills paid on a reimbursement basis for running ambulance/power generators by M/s AHEL at SDMH, Sullurpeta. This issue highlighted the complexity of GST implications on specific operational expenses and the need for a clear understanding of the tax treatment for such transactions.

In the final ruling, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh, concluded that the application from M/s. Satish Dhawan Space Centre Shar was not admitted under sub-section 2 of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the APGST Act, 2017. The decision was based on the applicant's status as a recipient of services, not a supplier, which rendered the application ineligible for admission. The ruling emphasized the binding nature of advance rulings on the applicant and the concerned officers, highlighting the limited scope of applicability in cases where the applicant is a recipient of services.

← Previous Next →