9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the Authority for Advance Ruling consider the ratio of the judgement pass a ruling thereafter. It is left open to the Authority for Advance Ruling to consider applicability of the judgement as per settled principles of jurisprudence. The Ruling of AAR. Rajasthan dated 17.06. 2022. is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AAR to decide the application afresh after considering the judgement of Hon ble High Court, Calcutta delivered in the case M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. Versus West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Service Tax. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering, including any mid-day meals scheme sponsored by the Central Government, State Government or Union territory; (iii) security or cleaning or house-keeping services performed in such educational institution; (iv) services relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution; up to higher secondary: Provided that nothing contained in entry (b) shall apply to an educational institution other than an institution providing services by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary' school or equivalent NIL NIL 4. The Appellant further submitted that Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 was amended through Notification No. 2/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018 vide which, In the said notification, (b) Against serial number 66, in the entry in column (3)- (ii) in item (b) (A) in sub-item (iv), the words" up to higher secondary" were omitted; (B) after sub-item(iv), the following sub-item were inserted, namely:- "(v) supply of online educational journals or periodicals:"; (C) in the proviso, for the word, brackets and letter "entry (b)", the words, brackets a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant seeking ruling on questions stated hereinabove being not maintainable. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 8. Being aggrieved against the Order of Advance Ruling dated 17.06.2022. the Appellant filed appeal on the following grounds :- (i) That the Authority for Advance Ruling has erred in law in dismissing the application of the Appellant on the sole technical ground that the applicant (now Appellant) are not a supplier of the good or services. (ii) That the Authority for Advance Ruling have failed to take into consideration meaning of applicant under the definition of advance ruling under Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017 in Para 6 of Findings, Analysis & Conclusion. (iii) That an Applicant can be made by any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this act. Furthermore, person defined under Section 2(84) (g) of the CGST Act, 2017 includes any corporation established by or under any Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act or a Government company as defined in clause (45) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, Board of Secondary Education comes under the definition of person. (iv) That Authority for Advance Ruling in Para 7 of Findings, Analysis, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd borne by the Appellant as per the normal mechanism followed in GST. The Appellant fall under the definition of Educational Institution by virtue of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which clearly exempts services provided to an Educational Institution in relation to conduct of examination. Further, the earlier Notification of exemption upto higher secondary school or equivalent has been superseded by Notification No. 02/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018. Further, Notification No. 14/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 amended the Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 and added clarification in paragraph 3 in explanation after clause (iii) i.e "(iv) For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the Central and State Educational Boards shall be treated as Educational Institution for the limited purpose of providing services by way of conduct of examination to the students". PERSONAL HEARING 9. Personal hearing in the matter was held on 13.02.2024, which was attended by Sh. Praful Gupta CA & authorized representative of the appellant. He supplied written submissions dated 13.02.2024. He relied upon the judgment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Board of School Education having Order No. 01/2019/GST-ARA of 2019 accepted the application from State Board of School Education J&K which was filed on the basis of asking question as recipient of services. The Questions which were raised by the State Board of School Education J&K are also the same questions on which RBSE (the Appellant) had sought Advance Ruling. Therefore, the Appellant have requested to take above AAR of J&K into consideration and pass order accordingly. d. That the impugned Order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 11. We have carefully considered the material evidence available on record including the oral submissions made by the authorized representative of the appellant at the time of personal hearing held on 13.02.2024. 12. We observe that the Appellant had sought Ruling before the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan as to whether the services provided by various suppliers to the Board of Secondary Education in relation to conducting examination can be treated as exempted under the provisions of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Projects Limited & anr. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. in M.A.T. No. 2027 of 2022 dated 05.01.2023, where this court held that appellants being the registered person under the law (GST Act) would fall within the definition of 'applicant'; even though the appellant therein were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR. * In the present case, the appellant fulfils the eligibility to seek advance ruling. * Accordingly, the court set aside the ruling of AAR and remanded back the matter to AAR to decide the application on merits and in accordance with the law. 17. We observe that AAR Rajasthan have not taken note of the above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court as the judgement had not been pronounced at the relevant point of time. 18. We feel that it will be in the fitness of things if the Authority for Advance Ruling consider the ratio of the judgement & pass a ruling thereafter. We leave it open to the Authority for Advance Ruling to consider applicability of the judgement as per settled principles of jurisprudence. 19. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following order: ORDER The Ruling of AAR. Rajasthan dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
