Page 162 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

264 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
(i) In absence of sufficient information, it cannot be determined wheth-
er M/s. National Dairy Development Board is “Governmental Au-
thority” as per definition of “Governmental Authority provided vi-
de clause (zf) of Para 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax
(Rate) and corresponding State Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax
(Rate), or otherwise; and
(ii) Exemption provided vide Sr. 4 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central
Tax (Rate) and corresponding State Notification No. 12/2017-State
Tax (Rate) is not admissible to M/s. National Dairy Development
Board for providing service of ‘Renting of Immovable Property’.
Findings (as per Dr. P.D. Vaghela) :
16. The narration of facts as mentioned by the appellant is covered by
the order of my colleague and therefore it is not repeated. I differ with the find-
ings of my colleague and therefore also the order of my colleague. The differ-
ences are as follows :
(1) I agree with the findings of the Advance Ruling authority that doc-
uments are not submitted by the appellant, substantiating the claim
of appellant that it is a Governmental authority as required by Noti-
fication No. 12 of 2017-Central Tax (Rate). The appellant is required
to prove the claim by submission of documents. The advance ruling
authority is therefore right in ruling that, -
“(i) National Dairy Development Board (24AADCN2029C1Z5)
would be qualified as ‘governmental authority’ from goods
and services tax perspective, if it fulfills the condition namely
“with ninety per cent. or more participation by way of equity
or control to carry out any function entrusted to a municipali-
ty under article 243W of the Constitution”.”
Even in the appeal, authentic documents are not produced by the
appellant. As already mentioned in the order of my colleague, the
long line after the words “Governmental Authority” mean an au-
thority or Board or any other body which is applicable to both sub-
clauses (i) and (ii). The similar issue is clarified vide Circular No.
76/50/2018-GST, dated 31-12-2018. The appellant has not referred
this circular and has not given any cogent reason as to why the ref-
erence cannot be made to apply the clarification to the present situa-
tion. However, the ruling of the advance ruling authority or this rul-
ing doesn’t debar the appellant to prove his case before the con-
cerned/jurisdictional officer.
(2) The appeal filed before us challenges the order of Authority for Ad-
vance Ruling only on single issue viz., whether Authority for Ad-
vance Ruling was right in passing the order as mentioned in Para 1
above. The appellant has not filed this appeal challenging the ruling
of Authority for Advance Ruling on “renting of immovable proper-
ty service provided by National Dairy Development Board
(24AADCN2029C1Z5) to an educational institute would be exempt-
ed under Sr. No. 4 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)
and corresponding State Tax Notification, if it qualifies as “Gov-
ernmental Authority”.”. Therefore, it cannot be decided in this ap-
peal on issue which is not subject matter of this appeal.

GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  162