Page 149 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] SUTHERLAND MORTGAGE SERVICES INC. v. PR. COMMR. OF CUS., CGST & C. EX. 51
not only for such foreign entities, who are permitted to make such investments in
India, but also for the economy of India. It is in the light of these dynamic scenar-
io in the fast changing global economy that the Parliament has taken a very pro-
active role with a very wide vision, the Parliament in its wisdom has decided to
mandate such a provision as in clause (e) of Section 97(2), whereby the applicant
is empowered to seek advance ruling even on the said larger issue of determina-
tion of liability to pay tax on goods or services or both and in view of such a sce-
nario, the Advance Ruling Authority is obliged to entertain such plea and con-
sider it on merits and then render its opinion/answer to such a plea that may be
raised and to render its advance ruling on those aspects in accordance with the
provisions contained in the abovesaid Acts.
23. In the instant case, it is true that the issue relating to determination
of place of supply as aforestated is not expressly enumerated in any of the claus-
es as per clauses (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, but there cannot be
any two arguments that the said issue relating to determination of place of sup-
ply, which is one of the crucial issues to be determined as to whether or not it
fulfils the definition of place of service, would also come within the ambit of the
larger of issue of “determination of liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both”
as envisaged in clause (e) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. The Advance Ruling
Authority has proceeded on a tangent and has missed the said crucial aspect of
the matter and has taken a very hyper technical view that it does not have juris-
diction for the simple reason that the said issue is not expressly enumerated in
Section 97(2) of the Act. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the said view
taken by the Advance Ruling Authority is legally wrong and faulty and therefore
the matter requires interdiction in judicial review in the instant writ proceedings.
In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the abovesaid view taken by the Ad-
vance Ruling Authority is legally wrong and faulty and is liable to be quashed
and accordingly declared and ordered. Consequently, it is ordered that the said
rejection order as per Ext.P-2 will stand quashed and Ext.P-1 application will
stand remitted to the Advance Ruling Authority concerned for fresh considera-
tion and decision in accordance with law. The Advance Ruling Authority will
immediately permit the petitioner to submit any further written submission in
the matter with any additional materials. This the petitioner will do within a pe-
riod of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Thereafter, the Advance Ruling Authority will immediately give notice of per-
sonal hearing to the petitioner and should also afford a reasonable opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner, through authorised representative/Counsel, if
any, and then should consider all relevant aspects of the matter and should ren-
der an advance ruling in the matter in terms of Section 98(4) of the CGST Act, etc.
The advance ruling as aforestated in terms of Section 98(4) of the CGST Act may
be duly rendered by the Advance Ruling Authority without much delay, prefer-
ably within a period of 3 to 4 months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this judgment.
24. Before parting with this case, it has to be borne in mind that India is
at the cusp of great global changes and there cannot be any two opinions for
anyone, who cherishes the best interests for this country, that with extreme hard
work and industry, we have to progress economically, socially and in all spheres
of our life. It has been in the consistent policies of the various Governments, both

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  213