Advance ruling jurisdiction denied where the question fell outside Section 97(2) GST categories and could not be answered.

An advance ruling application was held not maintainable because the question raised did not fall within the matters specified in Section 97(2) of the GST enactments. The Authority found that the request, which concerned whether non-member flat owners could be treated at par with society members for a monetary threshold exemption, did not involve classification, notification applicability, tax liability, registration, or whether an activity amounted to supply. As the issue lay outside the statutory scope of advance ruling, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to answer it and no ruling could be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking an advance ruling was maintainable when the question posed did not fall within the matters specified in Section 97(2) of the GST enactments.

Analysis: The application asked whether flat owners who were not members of the housing society could be treated at par with members for the benefit of the monetary threshold exemption. The Authority held that the question did not relate to any of the categories enumerated in Section 97(2), including classification, applicability of notification, determination of tax liability, registration, or whether an activity amounted to supply. Since the question was outside the statutory scope of advance ruling, the Authority found that it lacked jurisdiction to answer it.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and no advance ruling could be granted on the question raised.

---