9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant. From the submissions made by the applicant, we find that in the subject transaction, they are a receiver of supply of services from VFS. The question raised by Applicant does not pertain to supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed by them - in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act, since the supply in the subject case will not be undertaken/ is not proposed to be undertaken, by the applicant, we are of the opinion that this authority is not allowed to answer the question raised by the applicant, being out of the purview of Sec. 95 of CGST Act. The applicant is recipient of services and not supplier of services, hence their application is not in accordance with the provisions under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eforth for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, the expression 'GST Act' would mean CGST Act and MGST Act. 2. FACTS AND CONTENTION - AS PER THE APPLICANT The submissions made by the applicant is as under:- 2.1 The Applicant, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), established under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is availing services from VFS Global Limited (VFS), by way of provision for Citizen Facilitation Centers (CFC), where a window for payment of Tax (Imposed by MCGM as per the Act) from the citizens under the jurisdiction of MCGM is provided. This facility is used by citizens to make payments of various taxes such as Property Tax, Water Cess etc. VFS raises invoices, based on the number of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not purchased by applicant. 2.6 Applicant has cited an advance ruling order passed by Authority of Advance Ruling Delhi bearing No. 06/DAAR/2018 dated 23.04.2018 = 2018 (5) TMI 904 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - DELHI and also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 15.02.2017 passed in respect of a Writ Petition (c) No. 7843/2014 = 2017 (2) TMI 814 - DELHI HIGH COURT in support of their contention that VFS is supplying Pure Services, being provisioning of only Manpower along with some consumables to the applicant. Further, these services are used for activities in relation to functions entrusted to Applicant), under Article 243 W of the Constitution and will therefore be exempt from GST as per GST La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the services received by applicant in the instant case. 04. HEARING Preliminary hearing was held on 02.012020. Mr. Sneh Siyar, C.A. appeared, along with Smt. Disha Bagwe, Account Officer, FAR, and Mr. Sachin Gangan, Senior Audit Account Asstt, and requested for admission of their application. Jurisdictional Officer Mr. Sriniwas Bharati, Dy. Commr of State Tax (E-610), Large Tax Unit - 4, Mumbai also appeared and made written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer objected for admission of this application, being not maintainable as per the provisions of law. We heard both sides. 05. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS: 5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case and the written submissions made by both, the applicant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed by them. 5.5 Hence in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act, since the supply in the subject case will not be undertaken/ is not proposed to be undertaken, by the applicant, we are of the opinion that this authority is not allowed to answer the question raised by the applicant, being out of the purview of Sec. 95 of CGST Act. 5.6 We also agree with the contention of the jurisdictional officer that, the applicant is recipient of services and not supplier of services, hence their application is not in accordance with the provisions under Section 95 of CGST ACT and is not maintainable. 06. In view of the extensive deliberations as held hereinabove, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
