Advance ruling maintainability barred where questions concerned facilitator supplies and issues already decided in earlier proceedings.

The AAR, Kerala held that an advance ruling application must relate to supplies undertaken by the applicant, and questions framed around services supplied by facilitators to the applicant were too vague and outside that scope. It also noted that the same subject matter had already been examined in earlier adjudication proceedings against the applicant, triggering the bar on admission under the CGST Act. As a result, the application was held not maintainable and no ruling was issued. The Authority therefore declined to consider the merits of mutuality, the deeming provision on member transactions, or the claimed exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application was admissible when the questions raised related to transactions involving facilitators as suppliers to the applicant and the same issue had already been decided in earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The questions framed by the applicant were held to be insufficiently specific and, in substance, concerned supply of services by facilitators to the applicant rather than supplies made by the applicant itself. The Authority noted that it is empowered to rule only on matters relating to supplies undertaken by the applicant under section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. It further held that the subject matter had already been examined in adjudication proceedings against the applicant, attracting the bar under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. In view of this threshold bar, the Authority declined to enter into the merits of mutuality, the validity of the deeming provision relating to member transactions, or the claimed exemption.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and no ruling could be issued on the questions raised.

---