Legal Position
For the purpose of advance ruling defined under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act as a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified above, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant, Section 95(c) of the CGST Act defines applicant as any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under GST.
The questions on which Advance Ruling can be sought are stated below as provided under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act:
A) Classification of any goods or services or both;
B) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this act;
C) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
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 services or both;
F) whether applicant is required to be registered;
G) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect 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.
From the above provisions, it is apparent that the Advance ruling should be sought on matters specified u/s 97(2) of the CGST Act related to the supply of goods/ services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Analysis
The position in the given case is to be analyzed in light of the above provisions in conjunction with Section 51 of the CGST Act. Section 51 deals with liability to deduct TDS in the hands of the prescribed and notified recipient of goods/ services specified u/s 51 of the CGST Act and NOT in hands of the supplier of goods/ services. Thus, an advance ruling cannot be sought by the supplier of goods/ services in relation to the matter of TDS u/s 51 since the same deals with TDS liability in the hands of the recipient rather than the supplier. The subject matter is in relation to the supply made by the supplier, but the same doesn’t fall within the purview of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. The same is supported by Advance Ruling given in the case of Jimmy Antony dated 25.05.2021.
