Page 174 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

412 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
16. On perusal of the provision of Section 97(2), we find, that the question
on the determination of place of supply has not been covered in the above
set of questions, on which advance ruling can be given. Therefore, we do
not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such questions which involve
the determination of the place of supply of goods or services or both.
19. Thus, in view of the provision under Section 2(6) of IGST Act laid
down in respect of export of services and above discussed provision laid
down in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 encompassing the specific
questions, which are sought under advance ruling, it can decisively be in-
ferred that the questions raised by the respondent before Advance Ruling
Authority were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of Advance Ruling, and
hence do not warrant any ruling thereon.
5.8 We also find that Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Maha-
rashtra State (AAAR) has taken the same views on the similar matters before
them namely, M/s. Micro Instrument (Mrs. Vishakha Prashant Bhave), vide Appeal
Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19, dated 22-3-2019 [2019 (31) G.S.T.L.
526 (App. A.A.R. - GST)], M/s. Sabre Travel Network India Pvt. Ltd., vide Appeal
Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/30/2018-19, dated 10-4-2019 [2019 (27) G.S.T.L.
754 (App. A.A.R. - GST)], M/s. Asahi Kasei Pvt. Ltd., vide Appeal Order No.
MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/01/2019-20, dated 19-6-2019 [2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 172 (App.
A.A.R. - GST)], and in the case of M/s. Segoma Imaging Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
vide Appeal Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/28/2018-19, dated 3-4-2019 [2020
(32) G.S.T.L. 135 (App. A.A.R. - GST - Mah.)].
5.9 Relying on the abovementioned decisions of the Appellate Authori-
ty for Advance Ruling (AAAR) and in view of the provisions of Section 97 of the
CGST Act, 2017, we find that this authority is not allowed to answer the subject
question.
5.10 During the course of the final hearing, the authorized representa-
tive of the applicant also agreed that, to answer their question, this authority
would have to discuss the place of supply, which is beyond the jurisdiction of
this authority.
1 5.10 In view of the above discussions, we hold that the subject applica-
tion is not maintainable and thus liable for rejection.
6. In view of the extensive deliberations as held hereinabove, we pass
an order as follows :
ORDER
7. For reasons as discussed in the body of the order, the questions are
answered thus -
“The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being
non-maintainable as per the provisions of law.”

_______

________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  174