2020 (6) TMI 443 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - Place of supply of services - Commission received by the Applicant in the convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an Intermediary from overseas clients - Trade in goods between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of goods, is an export of services falling under Section 2(6) outside the purview of Section 13(8) (b) - cross-border sales/purchase of goods - intra-state supply - HELD THAT - As per Section 97(2) of CGST Act, the questions on which advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, matters or issues mentioned in Section 97 (2) (a) to (g) only. The place of supply of service does not find mention in Section 97. This authority is not allowed to answer the subject question - The subject application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 and Rules made thereunder.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Determination of whether the commission received by the applicant in convertible foreign exchange for intermediary services from overseas clients qualifies as an export of services under the GST Act.
2. Clarification on whether the impugned supply of service forming an integral part of cross-border sales/purchase of goods will be treated as an intra-state supply under specific sections of the IGST Act and MGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought an advance ruling to determine if the commission received for intermediary services qualifies as an export of services under the GST Act. The applicant argued that the transactions involve exporting goods to Indian importers, making them eligible for zero-rated tax. However, the jurisdictional officer raised concerns about the lack of supporting documents and the applicant charging CGST/SGST on commissions. The officer contended that the place of supply needed clarification to determine if the services were eligible for export benefits.

2. During the hearing, both parties presented their arguments. The Authority noted that the questions raised by the applicant required a discussion on the place of supply under the GST Act. However, it was observed that the questions did not fall within the scope of matters specified for advance rulings as per Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. The Authority referenced a previous case where the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in Maharashtra had similarly ruled that questions related to the determination of place of supply were beyond the jurisdiction of advance rulings.

3. Citing various appellate rulings, the Authority concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to address questions concerning the place of supply of goods or services. Based on the provisions of Section 97 of the CGST Act, the Authority determined that the application for advance ruling was non-maintainable. Consequently, the application was rejected on the grounds of being outside the scope of the GST Act and its rules.

In summary, the Authority rejected the application for advance ruling as it did not fall within the permissible scope of matters for advance rulings under the GST Act, specifically concerning the determination of the place of supply of services. The decision was based on precedents and legal provisions that limited the Authority's jurisdiction in addressing such questions.