The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) has held that recipient of services cannot seek advance ruling u/s 95(a) of CGST Act,2017
The appellant M/S Romell Real Estate Private Limitedhaving undertaking certain Residential Real Estate Projects (RREP) primarily having residential apartments. The applicant wants to know whether he can apply to the ‘works contract service’ received from its contractor’sEntry No. 3(v) (da) of Notification 11/2017-CT.The works contractors are entitled to levy GST @ 12% in terms of the Notification 11/2017-CT
The applicant contended that the Notification entry is qua the supply and not qua the person and therefore once a project qualifies as an Affordable Housing Project, the benefit of concessional rate of tax would be available in respect of ‘work contract services’ about low-cost houses, irrespective of it being supplied by the Developer or the Contractor.The Applicant has submitted that in this project more than 50% of Floor Space Index (FSI) is utilized towards the construction of units and the project would qualify as an ‘Affordable Housing Project (AHP) which has been given ‘ Infrastructure Status’ under the Notification F.No. 13/6/2009
The respondent contended that the supplier who was expected to ask the questions by way of filing the Advance Ruling application, and the applicant was the recipient and not the supplier of goods or services or both. Further stated that the contractor is the service provider and the applicant is the recipient of service and the benefit of this reduced rate of @6% would be available to the contractors who provide the composite supply of works contract to the developer/applicant.
It was observed thatunder sec 95(a)only a supplier can file an application for advance ruling, and the contentions of the applicant can’t be accepted. Under section 100(1) of CGST Act 2017,the ruling pronounced is binding only on the applicant and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. If an application is filed by the recipient of goods or services or both on the taxability of his inward supply of goods or services, such ruling shall be binding only on him and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of him.
MAAR comprising Shri. Rajiv Magoo, Member Central Tax and Shri. T. R. Ramnani, Member State Tax has held that the advance ruling filed by the applicant who was a recipient of the transaction was not maintainable.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
