Government Entity's GST Service Query Rejected Due to Jurisdictional Limitations Under Section 98(2) of CGST Act

Government entity filed an advance ruling application on GST-related service questions. SC determined that the application fell outside the jurisdictional scope of advance ruling authority since the queries focused on services received rather than services provided. Consequently, the SC rejected the application under Section 98(2) of CGST Act 2017, citing procedural limitations on advance ruling requests.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the advance ruling authority regarding questions related to services received by the applicant.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for advance ruling filed by a government entity, seeking clarification on certain GST-related questions. The applicant, a nodal agency for implementing government schemes, received funds from the government for urban infrastructure projects. The applicant provided various services, including project monitoring and occasional taxable services. The applicant also received services such as legal services and project monitoring from professionals. One of the key issues raised in the application was related to works contract services for water supply systems in a city, seeking clarification on the applicability of specific notifications. During the personal hearing, the applicant's representative reiterated the facts presented in the application.

The advance ruling authority, comprising Dr. M. P. Ravi Prasad and Sri. T. Kiran Reddy, noted that the CGST Act and the KGST Act have similar provisions and differ only on specific matters. The authority considered the submissions made by the applicant and the issues raised for advance ruling. However, the authority observed that the questions raised in the application were related to services received by the applicant, not services provided by them. As per Section 95(a) of the CGST Act 2017, an applicant can seek advance ruling on questions related to goods or services being undertaken or proposed by them. Since the questions in this case were about services received, the authority concluded that the application fell beyond its jurisdiction and was liable for rejection.

In light of the above analysis, the advance ruling authority rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017. The ruling emphasized that the questions raised were not directly related to goods or services being undertaken by the applicant, leading to the rejection of the application.

---