9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1181 - AAR - GSTClassification of services - services provided by the Heli-Operators by way of transport of passengers by air in case of Helicopter Shuttle Services - rate of GST - Applicability of N/N. 11/2017 CGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. HELD THAT - The applicant i.e. M/s Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority, Dehradun in their application dated 11.03.2023 has declared that M/s Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority, is a society formed by the State Government of Uttarakhand, for objectives which include developing tourism by way facilitating and controlling air transport in the state and to provide services in respect of air security and conducting rescue operations, which means to say that the applicant floats/ issue tenders to select helicopter shuttle service operators on select routes in the state of Uttarakhand on license basis, which entails providing of services by way of transport of passengers by air. The applicant in the instant case does not provide any service of transport of passengers by air and also they do not receive the services of transport of passengers by air' by any of the helicopter shuttle service operator , as they do not fall under the category of 'passengers . Hence the applicant do not fulfill the conditions as mandated in Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, in as much as the applicant i.e. M/s Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority, Dehradun has approached the Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods Service Tax, Uttarakhand, on matters or on questions which is not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. The applicant in the instant case do not fulfill the criterion as mandated in sub-section (a) of the Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, and hence in terms of section 98(2) of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, the present application is not admitted and rejected without going into the merits of the case.
Issues involved:
- Classification of services provided by Heli-Operators for transport of passengers by air in Helicopter Shuttle Services. - Applicable GST rate on the services provided by Heli-Operators as per notification 11/2017 CGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Classification of services provided by Heli-Operators: The case involved an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 97 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 and Uttarakhand State Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 regarding the classification of services provided by Heli-Operators for the transport of passengers by air in Helicopter Shuttle Services. The applicant, M/s Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority (UCADA), sought an advance ruling on this matter. The applicant, a society formed by the State Government of Uttarakhand, issues tenders to select helicopter shuttle service operators on select routes in Uttarakhand for providing safe and economical services to pilgrims and passengers. The Heli-Operators participate in the tender process and provide air transport services in the form of Charter Services and Shuttle Services to passengers. However, the ruling authority found that the applicant does not fulfill the conditions as mandated in the CGST Act, as they do not provide or receive transport services by air, and therefore, the application was rejected without delving into the merits of the case. Applicable GST rate on services provided by Heli-Operators: The second issue in the case pertained to the applicable GST rate on the services provided by Heli-Operators as per notification 11/2017 CGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The ruling authority, after examining the application and the functions of M/s UCADA, concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria required for an advance ruling under the CGST Act. As a result, the application was not admitted and was rejected without considering the specifics of the case. The authority clarified that the applicant's request did not relate to the supply of goods or services being undertaken or proposed by them, thus rendering it outside the purview of the advance ruling process defined in the GST statute. Separate Judgement (if applicable): No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
