2026 (2) TMI 577 - AAR - GST

Advance Ruling maintainability for completed transactions: application rejected because transaction was concluded before filing, so ruling unavailable.

An advance ruling under the CGST framework cannot be entertained for transactions already completed before filing; where assignment of leasehold rights, ... Advance ruling - maintainability of advance ruling for completed transactions - transaction 'being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken' - nature of the transaction of assignment of leasehold rights - Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 - taxability of the cost of land development charged by the transferor, and eligibility of Input Tax Credit on the same - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that all financial transactions connected with the instant issue were concluded on or before 25.06.2025. Consequently, any tax liability or benefit arising from the taxability or otherwise of the said transaction ought to have been discharged or availed at the material time by the applicant. The very expression “Advance Ruling” denotes a determination provided in advance, intended to facilitate trade by clarifying issues of an ambiguous or uncertain nature. In the present case, the transaction in question had already been fully executed prior to the filing of the application. The agreements had been entered into, possession had been transferred, and the consideration had been paid in entirety before the date of filing of ARA-01 Application. As the transaction stood concluded beforehand, it does not fall within the ambit of a supply “being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken” as envisaged under Section 95(a). Accordingly, the queries raised regarding taxability, classification, and eligibility of input tax credit lie beyond the permissible scope of an advance ruling. Where the transfer of rights and payment of consideration are completed before the date of filing of the application, the advance ruling is not maintainable since the transaction is already concluded. The facts and legal position in the present matter are squarely aligned with such precedent. In view thereof, it is evident that the issues raised pertain to a transaction that was fully completed prior to the filing of the instant application. The application is, therefore, not maintainable. Thus, it is held that an applicant cannot seek an advance ruling under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, in respect of a transaction that has already been completed. The application is accordingly not maintainable. Issues: Whether an applicant can seek an advance ruling under Section 95(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and corresponding provisions of the APGST Act, 2017) in respect of a transaction that was fully completed before filing the application.Analysis: The Authority examined whether the assignment of leasehold rights and associated payments constituted a supply 'being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken' as required for an advance ruling under Section 95(a). The factual record shows the agreements were executed, possession transferred, and full consideration paid before filing the ARA-01 application. Since an advance ruling is statutory relief intended for supplies that are to be undertaken or are proposed, a transaction already concluded at the time of filing falls outside the statutory scope. The Authority therefore restricted its consideration to the question of maintainability and did not proceed to decide the taxcharacterization or ITC eligibility on merits.Conclusion: The application is not maintainable because the transaction was completed prior to filing; an advance ruling cannot be sought for a completed transaction. The applicant's request for an advance ruling is accordingly rejected in favour of the Revenue.