https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437481 The dominant issue was whether a registered recipient of services has locus standi to seek an advance ruling under the CGST Act, 2017. The HC held that "applicant" under s.95(c) is defined broadly to include any person registered or desirous of registration, and s.97(2)(b) permits an advance ruling on the applicability of an exemption notification. Since the appellants were registered and sought a ruling on exemption of upfront lease premium under Notification No. 12/2017-CGST (Rate), the AAR had jurisdiction to decide the application on merits and could not reject it for want of locus. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the AAR for decision on merits; the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437481 The dominant issue was whether a registered recipient of services has locus standi to seek an advance ruling under the CGST Act, 2017. The HC held that "applicant" under s.95(c) is defined broadly to include any person registered or desirous of registration, and s.97(2)(b) permits an advance ruling on the applicability of an exemption notification. Since the appellants were registered and sought a ruling on exemption of upfront lease premium under Notification No. 12/2017-CGST (Rate), the AAR had jurisdiction to decide the application on merits and could not reject it for want of locus. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the AAR for decision on merits; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437481