AAR rejects advance ruling application by service recipient on IGST/CGST/SGST for property rental under reverse charge mechanism

AAR Maharashtra rejected an advance ruling application filed by a service recipient regarding IGST/CGST/SGST levy on renting of immovable property services under reverse charge mechanism. The authority held that Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017 permits advance rulings only for supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant, not for services received. Since the applicant was merely a recipient of renting services rather than a supplier, the application was non-maintainable and rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a company is required to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism on renting of immovable property services from a local authority in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as per specific notifications.
2. Whether the company is required to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism on any other services as per the same notifications.
3. If tax is applicable, under which tax head the reverse charge mechanism should be paid.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Tax on Renting of Immovable Property Services
The applicant, a SEZ unit, contended that services procured from a SEZ authority should be exempt from reverse charge mechanism as per SEZ Act provisions. They argued that the SEZ Act overrides other laws, including taxation laws. The applicant cited relevant notifications and provisions to support their claim that services to SEZ units are zero-rated supplies. They also referred to a High Court judgment supporting exemption for services used for authorized SEZ operations. However, the Advance Ruling Authority rejected the application, stating that the applicant, in this case, was a recipient of services, not a supplier, and thus the application was not maintainable under the GST Act.

Issue 2: Tax on Other Services
The applicant sought clarification on whether reverse charge mechanism applied to other services as per the same notifications. They argued that since services to SEZ are considered inter-state supplies, they should be zero-rated. The applicant referenced specific FAQs and notifications to support their stance that no GST was payable on services procured within India for SEZ units. However, the Authority rejected the application on the grounds that the applicant was a recipient of services, not a supplier, and thus the application was not maintainable under the GST Act.

Issue 3: Tax Head for Reverse Charge Mechanism
The applicant also questioned under which tax head the reverse charge mechanism should be paid if applicable. However, since the application was rejected on procedural grounds, this issue was not addressed in the final ruling.

In conclusion, the Advance Ruling Authority rejected the application on the basis that the applicant was a recipient of services, not a supplier, and thus the application was not maintainable under the GST Act. The Authority did not delve into the merits of the case regarding the tax liability under reverse charge mechanism for the services procured by the SEZ unit.

---