https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447587 The AAR, UP dismissed an application filed by an infrastructure company seeking advance ruling on GST liability for transmission line work under MVVNL supervision. The applicant claimed double taxation as it paid GST to both contractors and MVVNL on the same transaction value. The AAR held that the applicant was a service recipient, not supplier, and under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only suppliers can file advance ruling applications. The application was rejected on grounds of maintainability without examining the merits of the double taxation claim. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447587 The AAR, UP dismissed an application filed by an infrastructure company seeking advance ruling on GST liability for transmission line work under MVVNL supervision. The applicant claimed double taxation as it paid GST to both contractors and MVVNL on the same transaction value. The AAR held that the applicant was a service recipient, not supplier, and under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only suppliers can file advance ruling applications. The application was rejected on grounds of maintainability without examining the merits of the double taxation claim. Case-Laws GST Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447587