Application for GST exemption on services by VFS Global to Municipal Corporation rejected by AAR

The Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the application for advance ruling as non-maintainable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute arose from whether services provided by VFS Global to the Municipal Corporation should be exempt from GST under specific notifications. The Authority determined that since the applicant was the recipient of services, not the supplier, the application did not align with the provisions of the CGST Act, leading to its rejection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether services provided by VFS Global to the Municipal Corporation should be exempt from GST under specific notifications.

Analysis:
1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) sought an advance ruling on whether services provided by VFS Global should be exempt from GST. The services included collection services provided by VFS for various taxes under a contract where VFS also supplied necessary equipment/materials. The applicant argued that these services qualified for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 of CGST and Notification No. 02/2018 of CGST.

2. The applicant contended that the services provided by VFS were pure services and used for activities related to functions entrusted to the Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. They referenced a previous advance ruling and a High Court decision to support their claim that VFS was supplying pure services, mainly manpower and consumables, which should be exempt from GST under the law.

3. The jurisdictional officer objected to the application, stating that the applicant was the receiver of services, not the supplier, and therefore, the application was not maintainable. They argued that there was no direct link between the service of tax collection by VFS and the activities performed by MCGM, making the exemption notifications inapplicable to the services received by the applicant.

4. The Authority for Advance Ruling examined the case and found that the question raised did not pertain to the supply of goods or services being undertaken or proposed by the applicant. Since the applicant was the recipient of services, not the supplier, the authority concluded that the application was not in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act and was therefore non-maintainable.

5. Consequently, the Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the application for advance ruling as non-maintainable under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision rendered by the Authority for Advance Ruling.

---