AAR dismisses advance ruling application for printing question papers due to insufficient documentation and supporting evidence

The AAR Maharashtra dismissed an advance ruling application regarding classification of printing and supply of question papers for educational institutions. The applicant sought to determine whether their activity qualified for exemption under specific GST notifications or fell under nil-rate printed books category. Despite written directions and explanations during hearings, the applicant failed to provide essential documents including bills, tender documents, agreements, or correspondence governing the transactions. The Authority held that without proper factual details and supporting documentation, it was impossible to comprehend the nature of the transaction and provide meaningful answers to the classification questions raised.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the activity of printing and supply of question papers for Universities, Educational Boards, and Educational Institutes as supply of goods or services.
2. Applicability of the benefit under SI. No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) if the activity is treated as supply of services.
3. Classification and exemption status of the activity as supply of goods under SL. No. 119 of the exempted list at Nil rate of tax under CH 4901.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification as Supply of Goods or Services
The applicant, a proprietary firm, is engaged in the confidential printing of educational test papers for various educational boards, universities, and institutes. The applicant argued that the activity of printing and supply of test papers should be classified as a composite supply where the printing of the contents provided by the educational institutions is the principal supply. The applicant referred to Section 2(30) and Section 2(90) of the CGST Act, 2017, which define "Composite Supply" and "Principal Supply," respectively. The applicant also cited Circular No. 11/11/2017-GST, which clarifies that the supply of printing where only content is supplied by the recipient is considered a supply of service. Despite these arguments, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) could not answer this question due to the absence of sufficient details and documentation from the applicant.

Issue 2: Applicability of SI. No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)
The applicant sought clarification on whether the activity, if treated as a supply of services, would be eligible for the benefit under SI. No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). This notification provides exemptions for services related to the conduct of examinations by educational institutions. The applicant argued that printing and supply of question papers is a service relating to the conduct of examinations and should thus be exempt under this notification. However, the AAR could not provide an answer due to the lack of detailed information and supporting documents from the applicant.

Issue 3: Classification as Exempted Goods under CH 4901
The applicant also questioned whether the activity, if classified as a supply of goods, could be treated as exempted goods under SL. No. 119 of the exempted list at Nil rate of tax under CH 4901, which covers printed books including braille books. The applicant contended that question papers do not fall under CH 4901 or CH 4911, as these headings predominantly deal with commercial printing. The applicant referred to a similar case decided by the Authority for Advance Ruling under GST, Gujarat, where the activity of printing question papers was classified as a supply of service. Despite these arguments, the AAR could not answer this question due to the absence of necessary details and documentation.

Conclusion:
The AAR could not provide answers to any of the questions raised by the applicant due to the lack of sufficient details and documentation. The applicant was directed to produce invoices, agreements, and other relevant documents to explain the exact nature of the work/activity being undertaken. However, the applicant failed to provide these details, making it impossible for the AAR to comprehend the transaction and provide a definitive ruling.

---