The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling held that the AAAR can not answer on correctness of GST liability on the basis of illustrative invoices.
The Appellant, Apsara Co-operative Housing Society is a Co-operative Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Society Act 1960.
The main objects of the Appellant as per the Bylaws is to obtain the conveyance from the promoter, in accordance with the provision of the Ownership Flats Act and the Rules made thereunder, of the right, title and interest, in the Land with buildings thereon; to manage, maintain and administer the property of the Society; to raise funds for achieving the objective of the Society; to undertake and provide for. on its own account or jointly with Co-operative Institution, social, cultural, or recreational activities; and to do all things necessary or expedient for the attainment of the objects of the Society, specified under the Bye-laws.
The Appellant filed an Advance Ruling application before the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority (MAAR) seeking clarifications on the issues Whether the said activities carried out by the Appellant would amount to supply, and whether the same are liable to the GST.
The issue raised was whether they are correctly discharging the GST liability, for which they provided the illustrative invoices raised on the members of the society.
The Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority held that the activities carried out by the Appellant would amount to supply in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, and accordingly would attract GST, as provided under Section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017.
“As regards the second question asked by the Appellant, it was held by the MAAR that the same cannot be answered in terms of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. as this question, asked by the Appellant, is not covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which encompasses the set of questions, in respect of which an Advance Rulings can be sought by the Appellant under the CGST Act, 2017,” the AAR said.
The coram consisting of Sanjeev Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Sharma did not find any reason to interfere with the ruling passed by the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
