Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2020 (1) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1093 - AAR - GSTExemption from GST - applicant provides services to help U.P. Housing Ministry to implement their policies plan and to help Government to provide affordable housing for all income groups - whether Awas Bandhu Uttar Pradesh can be exempt from GST regime? - HELD THAT - In the absence of any information about the specific activities provided by the applicant it would be premature to opine whether the applicant can be exempt from GST. Application for Advance Ruling rejected.
Issues:
- Whether the applicant, a State Government-owned entity, can be exempt from GST regime based on their activities. Analysis: The applicant, a registered assessee under CST with GSTN, sought clarification through an application for Advance Ruling regarding their exemption from the GST regime. The applicant provides services to assist the U.P. Housing Ministry in implementing policies for affordable housing. The application was accompanied by the required fee and forwarded to the Jurisdictional GST Officer for comments. A personal hearing was granted, during which it was argued that being a State Government entity, the activities should be exempt from GST. Upon examination, it was noted that the applicant's activities were aimed at helping the government provide affordable housing, but specific details of the activities were not provided in the application. The applicant relied on Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and provisions of the 12th Schedule of the Constitution related to urban planning and poverty alleviation. However, the lack of specific information on the activities performed hindered a definitive ruling on the exemption from GST. The Authority for Advance Ruling unanimously ruled that without specific details on the activities carried out by the applicant, it was premature to determine their exemption from the GST regime. Consequently, the application for Advance Ruling was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of providing detailed information on the specific activities to assess eligibility for exemption.
|