Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

The application for Advance Ruling is rejected

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 97(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017— Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application—The applicant submitted that the company is a global clinical research organization and inter-alia engaged in conducting bio-availability and bioequivalence and clinical trials for various pharmaceutical companies located in and outside India. In the process of providing the above services, the applicant provides scientific testing and technical analysis on pharmaceutical products and other incidental research and development in the pharmaceutical sector. For providing these services, samples of pharmaceutical products are made available to the applicant from an entity situated outside India and the applicant conducts clinical trials on the product for ensuring the scientific correctness of the products and during the process, the products as provided by the entities situated outside India are consumed. In other words, the products are utilized for preparing the report on the efficacy of the same are not returned back to the entity which had sent them for testing. Applicant receives the consideration in convertible foreign exchange for providing these services.
    The applicant has requested for determination as to whether the activities provided by the applicant will be treated as ‘export of service’ under the provision of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the ‘IGST Act, 2017’) and will consequently fall under ‘zero rated supply’ as per Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017.
Held that :-
This authority has been constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by section 96 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which Act extends to the whole of the state of Gujarat. This authority is a creature of statute and has to function within the legal boundary mandated by the Act. As the ‘place of supply’ is not covered by Section 97(2) of the Acts, this authority is helpless to answer the question raised in the application, as it is lacking jurisdiction to decide the issues. The jurisdiction of this authority does not extend to the questions on determination of ‘place of supply’.
In the Advance Ruling dated 27.03.2018 of the Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi in caseof M/s. Rod Retail Private Limited, there has been no discussion or decision as to whether the advance ruling authority has jurisdiction to decide the issue of ‘place of supply’.
The application is therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case, on the issue of lack of jurisdiction, at the stage of admission.
[2018] 3 TAXLOK.COM 46 (AAR-Gujarat)