TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-in-after referred to as the " Appellant") against the Advance Ruling Order No. UP ADRG - 22/2023 dated 21.04.2023 issued by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the UPSGST Act, are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act, 2017 would also mean a reference to the same provisions under UPSGST Act, 2017 and the vice versa. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. M/s Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. situated at Administrative Building, Near Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Samajik Parivartan Sthal, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, is a registe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by KESCO by the way of utility shifting are integral part of services supplied by KESCO by way of distribution of electricity? (2) Whether services supplied by KESCO by the way of utility shifting are ancillary to the principal supply of services by way of distribution of electricity? (3) Whether the exemption given under entry no. 25 of the exemption notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 with respect to the services by way of transmission and distribution of electricity is available to KESCO? (4) If answer to issue at 3 is Yes, whether the appellant is liable to pay GST on the activity of utility shifting performed by KESCO or by itself as such utility shifting is an integral part of serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2023 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling is bad, illegal, arbitrary and against the settled propositions of law in as much as it has been passed by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 and holds that the appellant has no locus standi to move an application for seeking advance ruling being a receiver of goods/services provided by KESCO. 8.2. The Appellant submits that under Section 97 of CGST and UPGST Act, 2017 provides as under- "An applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling under this Chapter may make an application in such a form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the advance ruling is sought." Further Section 95(a) and 95(c) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsider the application on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of having no locus standi. 8.5. The Appellant submits that they clearly fall under the definition of 'applicant' as defined under section 95 (c) of the Act and application filed by the appellant before AAR is required to be decided on merit. 8.6. The question on which the appellant has sought advance ruling involves heavy and unjust tax burden which is not justified in the eyes of law and is against the principles of natural justice. 8.7. The amount involved in the transactions being heavy and shall impact all the projects of U.P.M.R.C all over the state. Further dispute arising between the appellant and KESCO results in delaying of projects attr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97 or sub-section (1) of section 100 in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further,- as per Section 95(c) of the act 'applicant' means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act; 12. Needless to say that meaning of the term "applicant" as defined under clause (c) of Section 95 of the act, should be derived only in consonance with clause (a) of Section 95 of the CGST Act 2017 which clearly provides that the applicant of Advance Ruling Should be related to a taxpayer who supplies the goods or services or both or who proposes to make supplies in future. As the wordings s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Authority for Advance Ruling. 14. We find that the appellant has relied upon the decision of M/s Gayatri Projects Limited & Anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur and Anr. M.A.T. No. 2027 of 2022 wherein Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that "appellant being a registered dealer under provisions of the act could be an applicant under Section 95(c) of the Act". We have gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. We find that in the refereed case the facts and contents are different and not relevant to the case presented before us. The appellant has also relied upon the judgment of a division bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of M/s Anmol Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs West Bengal Authority for ....