https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421422 The AAR Maharashtra dismissed an advance ruling application filed by a service recipient regarding works contract services and concessional rate benefits for construction of common amenities. The AAR held that under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, only suppliers can file advance ruling applications, not recipients of goods or services. Since the applicant was the recipient of construction services from contractors rather than the supplier, the questions were not maintainable. The AAR emphasized that advance rulings bind only the applicant and concerned officers, and cannot bind suppliers when filed by recipients. The applicant's representative agreed during hearing that the questions fell outside the scope of Section 95(a). en-us Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421422 The AAR Maharashtra dismissed an advance ruling application filed by a service recipient regarding works contract services and concessional rate benefits for construction of common amenities. The AAR held that under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, only suppliers can file advance ruling applications, not recipients of goods or services. Since the applicant was the recipient of construction services from contractors rather than the supplier, the questions were not maintainable. The AAR emphasized that advance rulings bind only the applicant and concerned officers, and cannot bind suppliers when filed by recipients. The applicant's representative agreed during hearing that the questions fell outside the scope of Section 95(a). Case-Laws GST Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421422