2023 (4) TMI 299 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of advance ruling application - Levy of GST - leviability of GST on the supply made by the developer - Input Tax Credit in respect of the supply received by the applicant - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of the sections 95(a) and (c), 97 and 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, depicts that advance ruling means a decision by the AAR to an applicant on matters or on questions specified under 97(2) ibid in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant; that an applicant, means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act; that such an applicant, may make an application in the prescribed form with appropriate fee, stating the question on which the said ruling is sought. The questions on which the ruling is sought is however, restricted to the 7 seven issues listed in section 97(2), ibid. Further, in terms of section 103, such a ruling shall be binding only on the applicant and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer, in respect of the applicant. The aforementioned application stands rejected in terms of section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with sections 95(a), (c), and 103 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the applicability of GST on the sale of developed plots and common amenities, as well as the authority of the applicant to seek an advance ruling on these matters.

Applicability of GST on developed plot:
The applicant sought clarification on whether GST is applicable on the sale of a developed plot. The applicant believed that as per a circular issued by CBEC, the sale of land after development activities should be considered as the sale of land and not attract GST. The applicant questioned the developer's proposal to charge GST on the sale of a developed plot.

Authority to seek advance ruling:
The judgment discusses the provisions of the CGST Act and the GGST Act regarding advance rulings. It highlights that an advance ruling can be sought by an applicant on specific matters related to the supply of goods or services. The ruling is binding only on the applicant and the concerned officer or jurisdictional officer.

Decision and findings:
The Authority found the questions posed by the applicant to be cryptic and difficult to comprehend. It clarified that the applicant, as a recipient of the supply, did not have the authority to seek a ruling on the applicability of GST on the supply made by the developer. The ruling sought was not related to input tax credit or the applicant's status as a supplier.

Conclusion:
The judgment rejected the applicant's application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the applicant did not have the standing to seek a ruling on the matter. It cited relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and concluded that the applicant's application did not fall within the scope of matters for which an advance ruling could be sought.