Service recipient cannot seek advance ruling on GST liability for services from foreign supplier under Section 103

The AAAR Karnataka dismissed an appeal by a service recipient seeking advance ruling on GST liability for services procured from a US entity. The Authority held that advance ruling applications can only be filed by suppliers, not recipients of services, as rulings bind only the applicant-supplier and jurisdictional officers under Section 103 of CGST Act. The recipient lacked standing to seek classification or place of supply determination for services received. While place of supply determination falls under Section 97(2)(e) when linked to tax liability, the Authority cannot rule on transactions where the applicant is not the supplier. The lower Authority correctly dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority to determine the place of supply.
2. Applicability of GST on services procured from Beacon US.
3. Whether the services qualify as an import of service under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017.
4. Determination of the liability to pay tax on the services rendered by Beacon US to the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority to Determine the Place of Supply:
The appellant contended that the lower Authority erred in dismissing the application on the grounds of jurisdiction, arguing that Section 97(2) of the CGST Act does not bar questions on the place of supply. They cited the Kerala High Court decision in Sutherland Mortgage Services Inc vs Pr Commissioner of GST, which held that determination of place of supply falls within the ambit of "determination of liability to pay tax" under Section 97(2)(e). The appellant also referenced multiple rulings where the place of supply was determined by various Advance Ruling Authorities, including those in Karnataka.

The appellate authority agreed that while determination of place of supply is not explicitly listed under Section 97(2), it is inherently linked to the determination of tax liability. However, the authority emphasized that the advance ruling mechanism is designed for suppliers, not recipients, of goods or services. Since the appellant is the recipient of the service, the authority concluded that the lower Authority was correct in dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

2. Applicability of GST on Services Procured from Beacon US:
The appellant sought a ruling on whether the referral services procured from Beacon US are liable to GST and qualify as an import of service. The lower Authority refrained from examining this aspect, citing jurisdictional limits. The appellate authority upheld this stance, clarifying that the advance ruling mechanism does not cover the classification of services supplied by third parties to the applicant.

3. Whether the Services Qualify as an Import of Service under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017:
The definition of import of service under Section 2(11) includes three criteria: the supplier is located outside India, the recipient is located in India, and the place of supply is in India. The appellant argued that the place of supply should be determined to ascertain if the services qualify as an import. The appellate authority noted that determining the place of supply in this context requires classifying the service, which is beyond the scope of the advance ruling mechanism when the applicant is the recipient.

4. Determination of the Liability to Pay Tax on the Services Rendered by Beacon US to the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the liability to pay tax on the services should be determined, including whether it falls under reverse charge mechanism (RCM). The appellate authority reiterated that such determinations are linked to the classification of services, which cannot be addressed when the applicant is the recipient. The authority suggested that Beacon US could seek an advance ruling on the taxability of their services to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority upheld the lower Authority's decision, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The authority emphasized that the advance ruling mechanism is intended for suppliers of goods or services and does not extend to recipients seeking rulings on the taxability of transactions received by them.

---