GST exemption for governmental authority status and educational institute rental remains unresolved due to differing appellate views.

GST treatment of a claimed governmental authority and the exemption for renting immovable property to an educational institute remained unresolved because the Appellate Authority members recorded differing views. On governmental authority status, one view required proof of the statutory conditions, including 90 per cent or more participation by equity or control and performance of functions entrusted to a municipality or panchayat, while the other found the supporting material insufficient and noted that proof could still be placed before the jurisdictional officer. On the rental exemption, one view held the activity was not in relation to a municipal function, while the other said the issue was outside the appeal. No unanimous final determination emerged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant qualified as a governmental authority for GST purposes; (ii) Whether renting of immovable property by the appellant to an educational institute was exempt under Sr. No. 4 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Issue (i): Whether the appellant qualified as a governmental authority for GST purposes.

Analysis: One view held that the definition of governmental authority required satisfaction of the common condition relating to 90 per cent or more participation by way of equity or control and carrying out functions entrusted to a municipality or panchayat, and that the available material was insufficient to determine compliance. The contrary view treated the appellant as not having produced supporting documents to establish the claim, while also noting that the ruling of the lower authority did not foreclose proof before the jurisdictional officer.

Conclusion: No unanimous final determination was reached on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether renting of immovable property by the appellant to an educational institute was exempt under Sr. No. 4 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: One view held that renting of immovable property is not an activity in relation to any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W, and therefore the exemption was not admissible. The contrary view stated that this question was not within the scope of the appeal because it had not been specifically challenged.

Conclusion: No unanimous final determination was reached on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The members of the Appellate Authority recorded differing conclusions, so the matter did not culminate in a single conclusive appellate determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental-authority exemption under the notification depends on satisfaction of the statutory conditions, but where the appellate members differ, no single binding appellate ratio emerges.

---