AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling...

AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.