Page 150 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

660 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
1 2.21 The applicant relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the case of K. Industries v. Mohan Investments and Properties Private Lim-
ited (Suit No. 507 of 1984), have submitted that sale of the shops by the land-
lord/vendor to the applicant is out of the purview of GST.
3. Contention - As per the jurisdictional officer :
No written submissions have been made by the jurisdictional officer.
4. Hearing :
Preliminary hearing in the matter was held on 10-12-2019. Sh. Saurabh
Lodha, CA appeared, and requested for admission of the application. Jurisdic-
tional Officer Sh. Mukul Patil, Jt. Commissioner of CGST, Commissionerate,
Nagpur-I, also appeared. He had orally submitted that the activity carried out by
applicant and stated that, the question posed before authority is not covered un-
der Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017.
5. Observations and findings :
5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case, written submission of
the applicant and the oral contention of the jurisdictional authority. In the subject
case we find that the applicant is a recipient of immovable property and has
raised the question ‘whether GST is leviable on the sale of shop which is 44 years old
and between lessor to lessee/to any person’.
5.2 This authority is governed by the provisions of Chapter XVII of
CGST Act and the relevant Sections are 95 to 98, 102, 103, 104 and 105. As per
Section 95, the term ‘advance ruling’ means a decision provided by this authority to an
applicant on matters or questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in relation to
the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by
the applicant.
5.3 Therefore, before we decide the question raised by the applicant in
this application, it is essential that we first determine whether or not the activities
undertaken by the applicant pertains to the supply of goods or services or both,
being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
5.4 From a perusal of activity undertaken by applicant as submitted,
the applicant has purchased four shops i.e. Shop No. A3, A4, A5 and A6 at
House No. 1, City Survey No. 110, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur and
wants to know the liability under GST Act on this transaction.
5.5 Section 95 allows this authority to decide the matter in respect of
supply of goods or services or both, undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by
the applicant. We find that the applicant has not undertaken the supply in the
subject case. In fact, the applicant is a recipient of property in subject transaction.
Thus, the condition under Section 95 is not satisfied by the applicant and hence,
the issue is not within purview of this authority. The impugned transactions in
not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken by the ap-
plicant and therefore, the subject application cannot be admitted. Hence we do
not discuss the merits of the case.
5.6 In view of the above we find that the present application seeking
ruling on question stated hereinabove is not maintainable and liable for rejection.
6. In view of the extensive deliberations as held hereinabove, we pass
an order as follows
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  246