Metro rail corporation cannot seek advance ruling as service recipient under Section 95(a) CGST Act 2017

The AAAR, UP dismissed an advance ruling application filed by a metro rail corporation seeking ruling on construction, erection and commissioning services received from a contractor. The Authority held that under Section 95(a) of CGST Act 2017, only suppliers of goods or services can file advance ruling applications, not recipients. Since the appellant was a service recipient receiving metro rail facility services, it lacked eligibility to seek advance ruling under the statutory provisions, which specifically require the applicant to be a taxpayer who supplies or proposes to supply goods/services.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act and UPSGST Act against the Advance Ruling Order by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh.

Brief facts of the case:
The appellant, a registered assessee engaged in construction of metro rail facility in Uttar Pradesh, faced a tax dispute with KESCO regarding GST on shifting of power lines. The appellant sought clarification on various questions related to the services provided by KESCO.

Grounds of appeal:
The appellant challenged the ruling stating they have the right to seek advance ruling as a receiver of services under Section 95 of the CGST Act. Citing precedents from Calcutta High Court, the appellant argued for their eligibility to file the application and have the matter decided on merit.

Discussion and findings:
The Appellate Authority found that as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, only the supplier of services can file for an advance ruling, not the recipient. The Law Committee and GST Policy wing confirmed this interpretation, emphasizing that advance ruling is applicable only to suppliers. The Authority rejected the appellant's claim based on the legal provisions and recommended appealing against the contrary High Court orders.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Authority affirmed the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, stating that the appellant, being a service recipient, is not eligible to seek an advance ruling under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, upholding the original ruling against them.

---