Page 111 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : RAJESH RAMA VARMA 37
(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have
been paid;
(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or ser-
vices or both;
(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;
(g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with re-
spect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in
a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of
that term.
The Act limits the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the issues earmarked for
it under Section 97(2) and no other issue can be decided by the Advance Ruling
Authority. Of the above questions on which ruling is sought by the applicant, the
question Sl. No. 2 is alone covered under Section 97(2) above. This position was
explained during the personal hearing also. The applicant during the hearing has
requested a ruling to determine the application on the question of GST liability
on the services he provides and the same is taken up for consideration.
7.1 We have carefully considered the various submissions made by the
applicant, the comments offered by the Central Tax Authority and the State Tax
Authority. The applicant has stated that he is engaged in the business of provid-
ing IT software related consulting services in the area of Oracle ERP w.r.t. Oracle
Financials. It is seen from the Contract between the applicant and Doyen Systems
Private Limited., that Doyen is a provider of software services in Oracle domain.
Doyen has entered into agreement to utilize professional and consultancy ser-
vices. Though the agreement does not elaborate on what such services are, it can
be understood that they relate to the expertise of the applicant in the area of Ora-
cle ERP software related services. The ‘compensation’ is agreed to be in the form
of ‘Consultancy fee’ to be paid on submission of Invoice and is subject to TDS
Deduction. The consulting service charges are to be billed at a fixed rate of USD
33.9 with a conversion into INR specified. The rate is called ‘IRM New Rate’. Fur-
ther, the contract specifies that ‘All payments are subject to approved invoice and
client time sheet’. The contract does not specify which client. From the invoices
raised by the applicant for the months of October and November, it is seen that
the invoices are raised on Doyen with description of ‘Oracle EBS IRM Support
Professional & Consulting’ in INR. From the Time sheet for the months of Oct.-19
and Nov.-19, e-mail correspondences relating to the billing, it is seen that the ap-
plicant has been interacting with the employees of IRM, USA of the applicant
states is the client of Doyen, the copy of the same is not furnished before us.
In the above factual position, the following emerges
 M/s. Doyen Systems has entered into a contract with foreign client
to provide software support services to the ERP applications
 M/s. Doyen Systems has entered into a ‘Consultancy agreement’
with the applicant, by which the applicant is obligated by Doyen
systems to provide ‘Professional and Consultancy services’
 The consultancy charges are agreed on hourly basis in USD and the
payment is made in Indian Rupees with the conversion rate aver-
aged
7.2 The contention of the applicant is that he, having directly rendered
service to IRM USA and having been paid a consideration by the Indian compa-
ny on account of those services, be treated as having made a supply of export of

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  111