AAR Maharashtra rejects GST advance ruling application for water transport services under Section 95 CGST Act

AAR Maharashtra rejected an application for advance ruling regarding GST classification and input credit for coastal and transoceanic water transport services. The authority held that Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017 requires the question to relate to supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Since the impugned question concerned supply already rendered before filing the application, the condition under Section 95 was not satisfied, making the application non-maintainable and thus rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of tax rate for providing service of Coastal and transoceanic water transport.
2. Eligibility to claim Input Credit of Goods & Service.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Determination of Tax Rate for Coastal and Transoceanic Water Transport Service
The applicant, a shipping company, sought an advance ruling on the tax rate applicable for providing Coastal Water Transport Service by bulk vessel. The specific case involved moving iron ore pellets from one Indian Sea port to another, with loading and unloading done by the clients. The applicant invoiced the service at 18% GST, but the client disputed, claiming a 5% GST rate was applicable. The Authority noted that the supply had already been completed before the application was filed, rendering it non-maintainable under Section 95 of the CGST Act, as it did not pertain to a supply being undertaken or proposed by the applicant. The Authority emphasized the need for the question to be in relation to a current or proposed supply to be eligible for an advance ruling.

Issue 2: Eligibility to Claim Input Credit
The judgment did not delve into the issue of claiming Input Credit of Goods & Service as the application was deemed non-maintainable due to the completed supply of services before the filing of the application. The applicant was requested to provide relevant documents during the final hearing to support their contentions, but failed to do so. Consequently, the application seeking a ruling on the tax rate was rejected under Section 95 of the CGST Act, and the merits of the case were not discussed due to the non-maintainability of the application.

In conclusion, the Authority rejected the applicant's advance ruling application as it did not meet the criteria under Section 95 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the need for questions to be in relation to current or proposed supplies. The issue of Input Credit eligibility was not addressed due to the non-maintainability of the application.

---