https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423689 AAR Maharashtra held that an application for advance ruling filed by a service recipient seeking concessional tax rate benefits under Notification 11/2017 for works contract services related to construction of common amenities was not maintainable. The Authority ruled that only suppliers can file applications for advance rulings under Section 95(a) of CGST Act, 2017, not recipients of services. Since the applicant was a service recipient, no ruling could be pronounced on the questions raised regarding taxability of inward supplies. en-us Wed, 08 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423689 AAR Maharashtra held that an application for advance ruling filed by a service recipient seeking concessional tax rate benefits under Notification 11/2017 for works contract services related to construction of common amenities was not maintainable. The Authority ruled that only suppliers can file applications for advance rulings under Section 95(a) of CGST Act, 2017, not recipients of services. Since the applicant was a service recipient, no ruling could be pronounced on the questions raised regarding taxability of inward supplies. Case-Laws GST Wed, 08 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423689