AAR dismisses Application filed by Service Recipient on Exemption Notification on ground of Maintainability Issue [Read Order]

Liquidated Damages - AAAR - Taxscan

The Advance Ruling Authority ( AAR ), Tamilnadu, has dismissed an application as it is found that the application by a service recipient on exemption notification was not maintainable under GST.

The applicant was importer of agricultural products viz. wheat through various sea ports for carrying out milling operations in their factory premises and manufacture of food products. While clearing the imported wheat from the seaports, the applicant engaged various service providers for providing services such as loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural products imported for clearing from the sea ports and to bring to their factory premises.

Before the authority, the applicant sought advance ruling on ‘whether exemption provided under the chapter heading9986 in Sl.No54(e) of GST Notification No.12/2O17-CT(R)dated 28.6.2017 for the service providers who have rendered Handling services such as loading , unloading, packing , storage or ware housing of agricultural products was applicable for agricultural products viz. wheat, when imported through sea ports.

The authority noted that the Advance Ruling sought is whether the exemption under Sl.No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12l2O17-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2OI7 is applicable for imported agricultural products Viz., Wheat also. From the submissions it is clear that the applicant avails the services of loading, unloading, storage, etc from various service providers.

“It is made clear that the applicant do not make any of the supplies in question, but are in fact the recipients of the various supplies as stated in their application. Thus, the question is on the liability to pay tax on the services supplied to them and not on the supply made by them,” the authority said.

From the above, it is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further, as per Section 103(1) of the CGST Act, the ruling is binding only the applicant and the Concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of the applicant. 4.2 In the case at hand, the appiicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. Accordingly, the Application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
taxscan-loader