Only Supplier can File Advance Ruling: AAR Rejects Application of National Capital Region Transport Corporation Ltd [Read Order]

The application, dated 28 August 2024, sought clarity on whether the shifting or re-routing of transmission lines belonging to Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) executed under a self-execution scheme through third-party contractors amounted to a supply of service, whether any asset transfer occurred between NCRTC and PVVNL, and whether the dual levy of GST by both contractors and PVVNL constituted double taxation.

Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law! Click here

NCRTC, a joint venture of the Government of India and the states of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, is engaged in the development of the Delhi–Ghaziabad–Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS).

The application explained that to facilitate this infrastructure project, certain transmission lines owned by PVVNL had to be shifted. While the work was executed by third-party contractors appointed by NCRTC, it was done under the supervision of PVVNL, which also levied a supervision charge inclusive of GST.

NCRTC claimed that this arrangement potentially resulted in the company paying GST twice, once to the contractors and again to PVVNL on the same activity, and therefore sought clarification via the advance ruling route.

Are You Paying Tax on Someone Else’s Income? Know the law! Click here

However, after reviewing the application and hearing the submissions of the authorized representative, the AAR noted that as per Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, an advance ruling can be sought only “in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.”

The application was beyond the permitted limits of the advance ruling since the NCRTC was getting goods or services in this case rather than providing them. Amit Kumar, I.R.S., and Harilal Prajapati's bench ruled that the applicant was not permitted to request an advance ruling since it was a recipient of PVVNL's services.

Accordingly, the AAR ruled that no decision could be rendered in this matter and dismissed the application.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates