In the case of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) set aside the ruling by the Advance Authority for Rulings ( AAR ) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The AAR dismissed the application of Advance Ruling stating that the applicant is not a supplier of goods or services. The case was on the applicability of exemptions under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 regarding services provided to educational institutions, particularly in the context of conducting examinations.
Board of Secondary Education, the appellant is a government authority, Jaipur engaged in supplying services to students about conducting examinations. The appellant receives various services from suppliers. Services of providing printing of Answer Sheets, Question papers, OMR sheets, Graphs, Certificates, Mark-sheets etc. Services are provided by way of online examination form filling. Service is provided by way of annual maintenance of the computers exclusively used for examination purposes. Service of operator provided by the supplier for the operating computer system. Services are provided by way of processing results through marks allotted in the examination.
The Appellant sought a Ruling from the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan as to whether the above services provided by the suppliers to the Board of Secondary Education about conducting examination can be treated as exempt under the provisions of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with explanation in paragraph 3 clause (iv) and read with Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17 June 2021.
The Appellant contended that Section 11(1) read with Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax ( Rate ) dated 28th June ‘2017, Notification No. 9/2017 IT (Rate) dated 25th June 2017 read with Circular No. 151/07/2021 GST dated 17th June 2021, respectively exempts the Supply of Services from Intrastate GST or Interstate GST as leviable u/s 9(1)/5(1) of the said Act.
The AAR found that the Appellant is the recipient of various services. It was held that Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 allows the authority only to decide on matters or on questions about the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. It was found that the Appellant is not a supplier and are recipient of services supplied by various suppliers.
Before the AAAR, the appellant alleged that the Authority for Advance Ruling had erred in law in dismissing the application of the Appellant on the sole technical ground that the applicant (now Appellant) is not a supplier of the goods or services. Further stated that the Authority for Advance Ruling has failed to take into consideration the meaning of the applicant under the definition of advance ruling under Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017
The AAAR Comprising Mahendra Ranga and Dr Ravi Kumar Surpur found that the AAR erred in law by rejecting the application solely on the ground that they are recipients of service and do not fall under the definition of Applicant as can be understood from the High Court of Calcutta Judgement that definition of Applicant is quite broad.
The authority set aside the Ruling of AAR, Rajasthan and remanded the matter back to the AAR to decide the application afresh.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
