AAR cannot provide advance ruling on completed supply contracts under GST law

The AAAR upheld the AAR's decision to decline ruling on a completed supply contract. Appellant sought advance ruling on GST exemption for operation and maintenance services provided to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited under work order TN-483 during 2019-2021. The AAAR held that advance ruling mechanism covers only ongoing or proposed supplies, not concluded transactions. Since the supply period had already ended, the application fell outside the scope of advance ruling provisions. The authority correctly refused to pronounce on merits of the completed transaction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) qualifies as a "Government Entity" under the relevant GST notifications.
2. Eligibility of tax exemption for services provided by the appellant to JVVNL under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Summary:

Issue 1: Determination of whether JVVNL qualifies as a "Government Entity"

The appellant sought a ruling to ascertain if JVVNL is a "Government Entity" as defined under clause (zfa) of para 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) observed that the words "or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity" were omitted from the notification as of 01.01.2022, resulting in the withdrawal of the tax exemption for pure services provided to government entities. Consequently, the AAR concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the said exemption from tax.

Issue 2: Eligibility of tax exemption for services provided to JVVNL

The appellant also sought a ruling on whether the services provided under work order No. TN-483 for the operation and maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations to JVVNL were wholly exempt from tax under the amended Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The AAR noted that the appellant applied for the Advance Ruling on 16.11.2021 for supplies effected up to 30.04.2021. However, as per Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, an Advance Ruling can only be provided for supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, not for completed transactions. Hence, the AAR did not pronounce a ruling on the question.

Appellate Authority's Findings:

The Appellate Authority reviewed the evidence and submissions, noting that the appellant's questions were interlinked. The Authority upheld the AAR's decision, agreeing that the supply was not covered under Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the supplies had already been concluded. The Authority emphasized that the term "advance ruling" pertains to supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, and once a supply is concluded, it no longer falls under the purview of the Advance Ruling mechanism.

The appellant's argument that the ruling was sought for future reference was dismissed, as the specific work order in question had already been completed. Consequently, the Authority found no grounds to interfere with the AAR's decision.

Order:

The Appellate Authority upheld the ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan, dated 01.06.2021, and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.

---