TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23 dated 27.09.2021. The Appellant submitted that they were to file an appeal by 01.11.2021 but were unable to file it within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the Order. As per the Appellant, their club was not in operation since recreational activities were not permitted by the government for a long period. As such, they were unable to file the appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days. The Appellant have contended that on account of suo-moto extension of the limitation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No 665 of 2021, the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently ' the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. This period was extended upto 28.02.2022 by virtue of Hon'ble apex Court judgement is miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in suo-moto writ petition (C) no. 3 of 2020. In this judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded while computing the time limit for filing the appeal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e term 'person' was defined under Section 65B(37) of Finance Act, wherein person includes "an association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". Likewise, according to Section 65B (44) of Finance Act, service means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration and includes declared service. 5(iii) According to the Appellant, two persons are necessary for an activity to be termed as service. Moreover, according to the Explanation 3(a) to the definition of service, "an unincorporated association or a body of persons, as the case may be, and a member thereof shall be treated as distinct persons". It was concluded by t e Hon'ble SC that incorporated clubs or associations (under Act/Cooperative Society Act) were not included in service tax net for this mentioned period. The service tax was payable only by un-incorporated clubs. It was held that from 2005 onwards, Finance Act does not purport to levy service tax on incorporated clubs. 5(iv) that the analogy of the above discussed Supreme Court decision should be applied in GST regime too as the explicit mention of "unincorporated association or body of persons" indicates levy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee or order of any Court, tribunal or authority, the person and its members or constituents shall be deemed to be two separate persons and the supply of activities or transactions inter se shall be deemed to take place from one such person to another, 5(ix) that the impugned Order has held that a retrospective amendment (w.e.f. July 1, 2017) has been made vide Finance Act, 2021 by inserting a new clause (aa) after clause (a) in Section 7(1) of the CGST Act to widen the scope of term 'supply' by including therein activities or transactions of supply of goods or services or both between any person (other than individual) to its members or constituents or vice versa for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Consequently, Para 7 of Schedule II of the CGST Act has been deleted retrospectively (w.e.f. July 1, 2017) which was related to 'supply of goods by unincorporated associations or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration' being activity/transaction treated as supply of goods. The appellant submitted that the retrospective amendment as proposed by the Finance Act, 2021 was not operational till the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by adding a new clause (aa) after clause (a) in section 7(1) of CGST Act 2017 wherein the scope of the supply was widened. Though this amendment was retrospective, however, it was not passed by all state assemblies as well as it was not operational till the date of ruling. This amendment was notified w.e.f. 1.1.2022. However, the Advance Ruling has been passed on 27.09.2021 on basis of an amendment which was not operational as on the date of pronouncing Ruling. Such a Ruling is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. He also contended that the Order was passed by a bench different from which had heard them in person. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 8. We have carefully gone through the material evidence available on record as well as oral submissions made by the authorized representative of the appellant at the time of personal hearing held on 10.01.2022 & 13.02.2024. 9. We observe that the appellant sought Advance Ruling to ascertain whether or not the services of short-term accommodation, restaurant and recreational services provided by them to its members are taxable. The Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan in their Order dated 27.09.2021 held that as per clause (aa) of sub-....