Advance Ruling— The present appeal has been filed against the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Maharashtra Authority, for Advance Ruling.

It has been observed by the MAAR that in the subject case. the Appellant is not undertaking the impugned supply, rather they are the recipient of the impugned supply, i.e., “Renting of immovable property services”, and therefore, the impugned transaction, i.e. services of Renting of immovable property, is not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both, undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant, and thereby has rejected the Advance Ruling application filed by the Appellant in terms of the provision of Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The only moot issue before us is whether the Advance Ruling application filed by the Appellant is maintainable in terms of Section 95 (a) read with Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 or not.

Held that— The appellant is eligible to file the subject Advance Ruling application, wherein they have sought the Advance Ruling as to whether they are liable to pay tax under RCM on the services of “renting of immovable property- received from the SEZ Authority and also on any other services liable for payment of GST under RCM in terms of the Notification No. 13/2017-C.T. (Rate). dated 28.06.2017 as amended.

The MAAR should not have rejected the subject application on the grounds mentioned in the impugned Advance Ruling, and should have decided the issue on merits. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the subject Advance Ruling application should be decided by the MAAR on merits, and accordingly the same is required to be remitted to the MAAR.