Consulting Services GST Exemption Application Rejected Due to Applicant Not Meeting Criteria

The application seeking an advance ruling on the exemption of consulting services from GST under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax was rejected as inadmissible. The applicant, providing pure services to a local authority, did not meet the criteria for seeking the ruling individually as the project was awarded to a Joint Venture (JV). The ruling can only be sought by the JV entity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the pure services provided by the applicant are exempt from GST as per Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the pure services provided by the applicant are exempt from GST as per Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017:

The applicant, a registered entity under GST, sought an advance ruling on whether their consulting services for the implementation of Integrated Storm Water Drain for M1 & M2 components of Kovalam Basin in the extended area of Greater Chennai Corporation are exempt from GST under S.No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Applicant's Position:
The applicant argued that their services fall under "pure services" provided to a local authority (Greater Chennai Corporation) and are related to urban planning, which is a function entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W of the Constitution. They cited Sl. No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which exempts such services from GST.

Virtual Hearing and Clarifications:
During the virtual hearing, the applicant confirmed that they provide pure services directly to the Greater Chennai Corporation and receive payments directly from them. They submitted various documents, including the contract agreement, invoices, and a detailed synopsis of their duties and payment references.

Jurisdictional Authorities' Comments:
Both the State and Center Jurisdictional Authorities confirmed that there were no pending proceedings on the subject issue and agreed that the services provided by the applicant could be exempt from GST under the mentioned notification.

Authority's Examination:
The Authority examined the contract, which was executed between the Greater Chennai Corporation and an unincorporated Joint Venture (JV) comprising GITEC-IGIP India Pvt. Ltd, GITEC-IGIP GmbH, the applicant, and N K Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The applicant sought the ruling in their individual capacity, not as a member of the JV.

Legal Interpretation:
The Authority noted that the project was awarded to the JV, not to the applicant individually. As per Section 95(a) of the GST Act, an advance ruling can be provided only to the applicant undertaking or proposing to undertake the supply of goods or services. Since the project was awarded to the JV, the JV is the "person" eligible to seek the ruling, not the applicant in their individual capacity.

Conclusion:
The application was rejected as not admissible because the applicant, in their individual capacity, did not meet the criteria under Section 95(a) of the GST Act. The ruling can only be sought by the JV, which is the entity awarded the project.

Ruling:
The application is rejected as not admissible for the reasons mentioned above.

---