Page 151 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : MAYANK VINODKUMAR JAIN 661
ORDER
7. For reasons as discussed in the body of the order, the subject applica-
tion for advance ruling made by the applicant is rejected under the provisions of
sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017.

_______

2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 661 (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 : MAYANK VINODKUMAR JAIN
Order No. GST-ARA-57/2019-20/B-11-Mumbai, dated 22-1-2020
in Application No. 57
Advance Ruling Authority - Jurisdiction - Export of services - Deter-
mination of place of supply - Applicant is seeking to know as to whether Car-
go Handling services to be provided to recipient located in Nepal would
amount to export of services or not - Settled in catena of Advance Rulings as
upheld by Appellate Authority that any query relating to export of services
would involve determination of “Place of Supply” which is beyond jurisdic-
tion of AAR - Following these, aforesaid application not maintainable - Sec-
tion 97(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [paras 5.5, 5.6, 5.7]
Application rejected
CASES CITED
Asahi Kasei Pvt. Ltd. — 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 172 (App. A.A.R. - GST) — Relied on ............... [Paras 5.6, 5.7]
Micro Instrument — 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 526 (App. A.A.R. - GST) — Relied on ..................... [Paras 5.6, 5.7]
NES Global Specialist Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.
— 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 650 (App. A.A.R. - GST) — Followed ............................................ [Paras 5.5, 5.7]
Sabre Travel Network India Pvt. Ltd.
— 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 754 (App. A.A.R. - GST) — Relied on ........................................... [Paras 5.6, 5.7]
Segoma Imaging Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
— 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 135 (App. A.A.R. - GST) — Relied on ........................................... [Paras 5.6, 5.7]
[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 M/s. MAYANK VINODKUMAR JAIN, the appli-
cant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following question :
The Applicant requests this Authority to decide as to whether the afore-
said services proposed to be rendered qualify as Export of Services” un-
der Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 or not?
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, un-
less a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the
CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the MGST

GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  247