2022 (12) TMI 256 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - application filed after the completion of O M work, as the tax amount was withheld by the contractee BWSSB - HELD THAT - In the instant case the questions, on which the applicant seeks advance ruling, are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the said applicant, but in relation to a completed supply, provided by them. Therefore the instant application is beyond the jurisdiction of this Authority and hence is liable for rejection. Application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority to consider a completed supply for advance ruling.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for advance ruling by M/s. KBL SPML Joint Venture regarding the classification of services provided to a local authority under Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The applicant sought clarification on whether their transaction fell under the mentioned notification. The Authority for Advance Rulings, Karnataka, examined the maintainability of the application as the services in question had already been completed. The Authority noted that Section 95(a) of the CGST Act 2017 allows seeking advance ruling on ongoing or proposed transactions. The term "being undertaken" implies a present and continuous supply. The Authority emphasized that the questions raised in the application pertained to a completed supply, not an ongoing one, rendering the application beyond its jurisdiction.

The Authority highlighted the broad scope of Advance Ruling under the CGST Act 2017, which can cover proposed as well as ongoing transactions. However, in this case, the services in question had already been provided, and the application was filed post-completion. As per the findings, the Authority ruled that the application was not within its jurisdiction and, therefore, rejected the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017. The decision was based on the principle that advance rulings are intended for ongoing or proposed transactions, not completed supplies. The ruling emphasized the importance of seeking advance rulings at the appropriate stage of a transaction to ensure the jurisdictional validity of the application.