Page 105 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : FUTUREDENT 31
ized Representative, made oral and written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer
Shri Sachin Sangale, Assistant Commissioner of S.T. Nodal-07, Mumbai appeared
along with Ms. Smita Ajbe State Tax Officer (C-719), Nodal-07, Mumbai.
4.3 Final hearing was held on 3-3-2020 during which Shri Haseet Bath-
iya, Advocate appeared along with Shri. Akshay Sharma C.A. & Authorized
Representative, made oral and written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer Sh.
Sachin Sangale, Assistant Commissioner of S.T. Nodal-07, Mumbai also appeared
and made submissions. We heard both the sides.
5. Observations and findings :
5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case, documents on record
and written submissions of the applicant and oral contention of the jurisdictional
officer. The issue before us pertains to applicability of a notification.
5.2 In the subject case, we find that, the applicant is a procurer of in-
termediary services from Fair Relations GmbH and the subject questions have
been raised by the applicant as a recipient of services.
5.3 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.
1 5.3 Thus the applicant can raise questions on matters or questions
specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act only if the supply of goods or services
or both are being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Hence it is clear that, even if the questions raised by an applicant are on matters
or questions specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act but if the supply of goods
or services or both are not being undertaken or not proposed to be undertaken
by the said applicant then the same is not covered under the Advance Ruling
provisions.
1 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 We find that the applicant has not undertaken the supply in the
subject case, and is also not proposing to undertake the supply. We find that, the
applicant is a recipient of services from a person situated abroad. The impugned
transactions are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both under-
taken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and therefore, the subject
application cannot be admitted as per the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act.
Hence without discussing the merits of the case, we reject the subject application
as not being maintainable.
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  6th August 2020  105