Advance ruling jurisdiction extends to place of supply where it is part of determining GST liability on a service.

An advance ruling application cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it involves place of supply where that issue forms an essential component of the broader question of liability to pay tax under the CGST advance ruling provisions. The High Court held that Section 97(2) is not to be read in an unduly narrow or hyper-technical manner: although place of supply is not separately listed, it may still be examined when the applicant seeks a ruling on whether a supply is taxable in India, including whether it qualifies as export of services. The rejection order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Advance Ruling Authority had jurisdiction to reject the application at the threshold on the ground that the question involved determination of place of supply, and whether such question nevertheless fell within the wider scope of determination of liability to pay tax under the advance ruling provisions.

Analysis: The advance ruling scheme under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits rulings on specified questions under Section 97(2), including determination of liability to pay tax. Although determination of place of supply is not separately listed in that provision, the question whether a service amounts to export of services and is liable to GST necessarily involves place of supply as one component of the broader issue of tax liability. The Authority adopted an unduly narrow and hyper-technical approach by treating the absence of an express reference to place of supply as a complete bar to jurisdiction. Since the petitioner sought a ruling on whether the supply was taxable in India, the application could not be rejected merely because place of supply was an element within that larger question.

Conclusion: The rejection order was legally unsustainable. The advance ruling application was required to be entertained and decided on merits, and the petitioner succeeded on this jurisdictional challenge.

Final Conclusion: The impugned threshold rejection was quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication by the Advance Ruling Authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A question that is not separately named in Section 97(2) may still be examinable in advance ruling proceedings if it forms an essential component of the broader statutory question of liability to pay tax.

---