2019 (8) TMI 1222 - AAR - GST

Permission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - Classification of goods/service - input tax credit - determination of tax liability - HELD THAT - Since the applicant has withdrawn the application, therefore no ruling is given.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods or services, Admissibility of input tax credit, Determination of tax liability.

Classification of Goods or Services:
The applicant, engaged in marketing promotional activities, charges a marketing fee along with GST for customer delight. Vouchers for hotels, restaurants, clothing, footwear, etc., are provided to B2B partners' customers for free. The applicant considers these goods as expenses and avails input tax credit. The jurisdictional officer views the services as business consulting services, questioning the admissibility of ITC due to lack of clarity on the goods/services received.

Admissibility of Input Tax Credit:
The jurisdictional officer opines that the applicant's services may fall under business consulting services, and since the applicant does not charge for the vouchers, the admissibility of ITC is uncertain. The officer asserts that the applicant is liable to pay GST on the total amount received for the services provided.

Determination of Tax Liability:
The applicant, represented by an authorized representative, submitted additional documents and a power of attorney. However, subsequently, the applicant requested the withdrawal of the advance ruling application. Consequently, no ruling was issued due to the withdrawal of the application.

This judgment by the Authority for Advance Ruling in Rajasthan addresses the issues raised by an applicant regarding the classification of goods/services, admissibility of input tax credit, and determination of tax liability. The applicant's engagement in marketing promotional activities, providing vouchers for customer delight, and the jurisdictional officer's interpretation of the services as business consulting services were central to the analysis. Despite the applicant's submission of additional documents, the withdrawal of the application led to the ruling that no decision could be provided.