Rectification of mistake— In the instant case, the applicant  is a sole Proprietary firm, carrying on business in the trade name: “Micro instruments"  and is an accredited distributor of M/s. Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH, Jena, Germany, (the “principal”), manufacturers of Laser Scanning Microscopes and Systems.

One of its activities relates to providing services to M/s. Carl Zeiss, Germany, by way of procuring Purchase Orders (P.O.) from the Indian customers, desirous of purchasing high-end advanced type of equipment, by negotiating the terms of supply, including fixation of price above the floor price, fixed by the Principal.

The applicant has filed an application seeking Advance Ruling as to “Whether the “Commission received by the Applicant in convertible Foreign Exchange for rendering services as an “Intermediary” between an exporter abroad and an Indian importer of an Equipment, is an “export of services” falling under Section 2(6) & outside the purview of Section 13 (8) (b), attracting zero-rated tax under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?”

The advance ruling authority held that since the applicant was an “intermediary”, therefore, his services would be “intermediary services”. Therefore, Section 13 (8) (b) would be applicable and the “place of supply” would be the location of the supplier (i.e. in Maharashtra) and since the receiver is abroad, the transaction is an “inter-state supply” under section 7 (5) (c) of the IGST Act, 2017, and is liable to tax @ 18%.

Subsequently, an appeal was preferred against the Advance Ruling which was eventually disposed of, holding that the application was not maintainable as deciding the 'place of supply' does not fall within the purview of Advance Ruling.

Now, the Applicant has filed yet another application dated 25.09.2020, seeking the restoration of their earlier Application dated 21.08.2019, which has already been decided by this Appellate Authority vide its Order dated 11.12.2019

Held that— This authority rejected the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Applicant i.e. M/s. Micro Instrument, to restore their Application dated 21.08.2019 seeking Rectification of Mistake in the MAAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22.03.2019 as the same has already been decided by the erstwhile Appellate Authority vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26A/2018-19 dated 11.12.2019 and therefore, the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant is not legally maintainable, and hence the same is liable to be rejected and we order accordingly.