Registered service recipient seeking advance ruling on upfront lease premium exemption under Notification 12/2017; rejection set aside, remanded.

The dominant issue was whether a registered recipient of services has locus standi to seek an advance ruling under the CGST Act, 2017. The HC held that "applicant" under s.95(c) is defined broadly to include any person registered or desirous of registration, and s.97(2)(b) permits an advance ruling on the applicability of an exemption notification. Since the appellants were registered and sought a ruling on exemption of upfront lease premium under Notification No. 12/2017-CGST (Rate), the AAR had jurisdiction to decide the application on merits and could not reject it for want of locus. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the AAR for decision on merits; the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the rejection of an application for an advance ruling by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Services Tax, on the grounds of locus standi.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Locus Standi for Filing Advance Ruling Application:
The appellants challenged the rejection of their application for an advance ruling by the AAR based on the grounds of locus standi. The Court noted that under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the term "applicant" is defined broadly to include any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act. As the appellants were registered under the Act, they fell within the definition of "applicant." The Court emphasized that the AAR should have considered the application on its merits rather than rejecting it based on lack of locus standi.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of "Applicant" under the Act:
The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the Act defines "applicant" to include any person registered under the Act. Even though the appellants were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR, being registered dealers under the Act, they were considered as falling within the definition of "applicant" as per Section 95(c) of the Act.

Judgment:
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the AAR rejecting the application. The matter was remanded back to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling to decide the application on its merits and in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case. No costs were awarded, and urgent copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon completion of legal formalities.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering applications for advance rulings on their merits rather than dismissing them solely based on procedural grounds like locus standi.

---