2018 (11) TMI 1350 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Liability to pay tax on the services supplied to applicant - exemption to service providers on imported agricultural products Viz., Wheat - exemption under chapter heading 9986 in Sl.No. 54(e) of GST Notification No.12/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.2017 - recipient of services. Held that - It is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further, as per Section 103(1) of the CGST Act, the ruling is binding only the applicant and the Concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of the applicant - In the case at hand, the applicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. Accordingly, the Application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case. Ruling - The Application for Advance Ruling of M/s. Naga Limited, Dindigul is not admitted, under sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the TNGST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption under Chapter heading 9986 for handling services of agricultural products under GST Notification.
2. Applicability of exemption for imported wheat through sea ports.
3. Liability to pay tax on services provided to the applicant.
4. Jurisdiction of Advance Ruling Authority over services received.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought an Advance Ruling on whether the exemption under Chapter heading 9986 for handling services of agricultural products applies to wheat imported through sea ports. The applicant imports wheat for milling operations and food production, engaging service providers for loading, unloading, and storage. Some service providers claim GST exemption for services related to agricultural products, while others argue it is limited to the supply chain up to the primary market, not including imported goods for secondary or tertiary markets. The applicant contends the exemption covers all stakeholders for unprocessed agricultural produce, including import traders.

2. The Authority examined the applicant's submissions and clarified that the ruling sought pertains to the liability to pay tax on services provided to the applicant, not on supplies made by them. The applicant is a recipient, not a supplier, of the services. The definition of 'advance ruling' under Section 95(a) of the CGST and TNGST Act indicates that an applicant can seek a ruling regarding goods or services undertaken or proposed by them. As the applicant is not the supplier of the services in question, the application was rejected without delving into the merits of the case, as per Section 103(1) of the CGST Act.

3. The ruling concluded that the application from M/s. Naga Limited was not admitted under sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the TNGST Act, 2017. The Authority clarified that the applicant's status as a recipient of services, not a service provider, rendered the application inadmissible for an Advance Ruling, as the question pertained to the liability for tax on services received, not supplied.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the distinction between being a service provider and a service recipient when seeking an Advance Ruling and the scope of liability for tax on services under the GST framework.