The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of law.
Advance Ruling- section 97 of CGST Act- In the present case, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following question.
Whether Works contract awarded under the Krishna Bhima stabilization project to be classified under sub-clause (vii) of serial no 3 of Heading 9954 (construction of service) substituted by way of Notification No 31/2017-Central tax (Rate) dated 13th Oct 2017 as amended to original notification 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate).
Applicant has not made any further submissions regarding their eligibility to file the subject application under the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017.
In the subject case, we find that, the applicant is a recipient of subject supply and has raised the subject question as a recipient of services.
The impugned transactions are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken 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.
Held that- “The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of law.”
The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of law.
Advance Ruling- section 97 of CGST Act- In the present case, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following question.
Whether Works contract awarded under the Krishna Bhima stabilization project to be classified under sub-clause (vii) of serial no 3 of Heading 9954 (construction of service) substituted by way of Notification No 31/2017-Central tax (Rate) dated 13th Oct 2017 as amended to original notification 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate).
Applicant has not made any further submissions regarding their eligibility to file the subject application under the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017.
In the subject case, we find that, the applicant is a recipient of subject supply and has raised the subject question as a recipient of services.
The impugned transactions are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken 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.
Held that- “The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of law.”