2020 (6) TMI 446 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - scope of Advance Ruling - Levy of GST - online or telephonic educational coaching from India for corporate, individuals or any other entities residing required outside India - Category under which taxable - HELD THAT - As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, this authority can only pass a ruling on matters or questions specified in subsection 2 of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. The supply of services is to entities situated outside India and therefore to answer their question we will be required to discuss the provisions of Section 13 and Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2019, pertaining to place of supply of services - As per the 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 services does not find mention in the said Section 97 - this authority is not allowed to answer the subject question. The subject application is not maintainable and thus liable for rejection.

Summary

Issues:
Taxability of online or telephonic educational coaching services provided from India to entities outside India under GST.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Contention by Applicant:
The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether their online or telephonic IT coaching services provided to entities outside India qualify as zero-rated export of services under GST due to realization of consideration in foreign exchange.

2. Contention by Concerned Officer:
The concerned officer classified the services under SAC Code 998313 and highlighted the GST rate of 18% for IT software supply. They referred to provisions of CGST Act, IGST Act, and CGST Rules regarding export of IT services.

3. Observations and Findings:
The Authority noted the jurisdiction under Section 97 of the CGST Act, stating that the ruling can be given on specific matters listed in Section 97(2). The applicant sought clarification under Section 97(2)(b) and (e) regarding the classification and liability to pay tax on services.

4. Jurisdictional Limitation:
The Authority observed that the determination of the place of supply of services, crucial for answering the applicant's query, is not covered under Section 97(2) for advance rulings. Citing precedents, the Authority concluded that such questions fall outside its jurisdiction.

5. Decision and Order:
Considering the jurisdictional constraints and agreement by the applicant's representative, the Authority held the application non-maintainable and rejected it. The order stated that the application for advance ruling was rejected as per the provisions of law.

In conclusion, the Authority rejected the application as it involved determining the place of supply of services, beyond the scope of matters allowed for advance rulings under the CGST Act. The decision was based on legal provisions and precedents, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the Authority in such cases.