https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396069 The AAR Maharashtra allowed the applicant to voluntarily withdraw the first question regarding export of services. For the second question concerning whether design development services provided to foreign entities constitute OIDAR services, the AAR declined to admit the application. The authority held that since a show cause notice dated 27.08.2018 was already pending before the GST department on the same classification issue - specifically whether the services should be classified as consulting engineering services or online database access services under OIDAR - the AAR lacked jurisdiction under Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 to rule on matters already under departmental consideration. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396069 The AAR Maharashtra allowed the applicant to voluntarily withdraw the first question regarding export of services. For the second question concerning whether design development services provided to foreign entities constitute OIDAR services, the AAR declined to admit the application. The authority held that since a show cause notice dated 27.08.2018 was already pending before the GST department on the same classification issue - specifically whether the services should be classified as consulting engineering services or online database access services under OIDAR - the AAR lacked jurisdiction under Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 to rule on matters already under departmental consideration. Case-Laws GST Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396069