9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 496 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - Exemption from GST - services provided by VFS global to applicant which are in the nature of collection services - pure service provided to the local authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution of India - Benefit of N/N. 12/2017 of CGST Rate) read with N/N. 02/2018 CGST (Rate). HELD THAT - The question raised in the subject application, is not in relation to supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. From the submissions made by the applicant, we find that in the subject transaction, they are a receiver of supply of services from VFS. The question raised by Applicant does not pertain to supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed by them - in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act, since the supply in the subject case will not be undertaken/ is not proposed to be undertaken, by the applicant, we are of the opinion that this authority is not allowed to answer the question raised by the applicant, being out of the purview of Sec. 95 of CGST Act. The applicant is recipient of services and not supplier of services, hence their application is not in accordance with the provisions under Section 95 of CGST ACT and is not maintainable - The application for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable.
Issues:
1. Whether services provided by VFS Global to the Municipal Corporation should be exempt from GST under specific notifications. Analysis: 1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) sought an advance ruling on whether services provided by VFS Global should be exempt from GST. The services included collection services provided by VFS for various taxes under a contract where VFS also supplied necessary equipment/materials. The applicant argued that these services qualified for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 of CGST and Notification No. 02/2018 of CGST. 2. The applicant contended that the services provided by VFS were pure services and used for activities related to functions entrusted to the Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. They referenced a previous advance ruling and a High Court decision to support their claim that VFS was supplying pure services, mainly manpower and consumables, which should be exempt from GST under the law. 3. The jurisdictional officer objected to the application, stating that the applicant was the receiver of services, not the supplier, and therefore, the application was not maintainable. They argued that there was no direct link between the service of tax collection by VFS and the activities performed by MCGM, making the exemption notifications inapplicable to the services received by the applicant. 4. The Authority for Advance Ruling examined the case and found that the question raised did not pertain to the supply of goods or services being undertaken or proposed by the applicant. Since the applicant was the recipient of services, not the supplier, the authority concluded that the application was not in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act and was therefore non-maintainable. 5. Consequently, the Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the application for advance ruling as non-maintainable under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision rendered by the Authority for Advance Ruling.
|
