Page 148 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

658 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
of the Constitution. Hence, they cannot be considered as “Governmental
Authority”. Therefore Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017 is not appli-
cable in the subject case”.
5.1 Thus, the issue raised by the applicant by way of rectification appli-
cation, has already been considered by this authority in the order itself.
6. We find that this authority has rightly decided the matter as per the
facts and contention submitted on the record while passing of the impugned ad-
vance ruling order and there is no apparent mistake from the record to be recti-
fied in the said order. Therefore, the present application is not found tenable un-
der scope of rectification. Hence it is rejected.
ORDER
7. Considering the facts on record and provisions under Section 102 of
CGST Act/MGST Act, the application for rectification is held to be non-
maintainable. Hence it is rejected.
_______

2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 658 (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.)
BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING UNDER GST,
MAHARASHTRA
Smt. P. Vinitha Sekhar, Member (Central Tax) and Shri A.A. Chahure,
Member (State Tax)
IN RE : ANJU KUSHAL JAIN
Order No. GST-ARA-48/2019-20/B-05-Mumbai, dated 15-1-2020
in Application No. 48
Advance Ruling application - Recipient of goods and services - Main-
tainability - In instant case, applicant is seeking to know whether GST was
leviable on his acquiring immovable property - Since jurisdiction of AAR is
limited to queries raised by supplier of goods and services and not to queries
raised by recipient, aforesaid application not maintainable and hence rejected
- Section 95 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Maharashtra Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017. [para 5]
Application rejected
CASE CITED
K. Industries v. Mohan Investments and Properties Private Limited
— Suit No. 507 of 1984 of Delhi High Court — Referred ...................................................... [Para 2.21]
[Order]. - Proceedings : The present application has been filed under Sec-
tion 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and
MGST Act” respectively) by ANJU KUSHAL JAIN, the applicant, seeking an ad-
vance ruling in respect of the following question.
“Whether GST is leviable on the sale of shop which is 44 yrs old and be-
tween lessor to the lessee or any other person?”
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST
Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore,
unless a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to

GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  244