Classification of service- In the instant case, the applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions:

a) Whether Consultancy Services rendered to ADB, Manilla would qualify as “export of services” in terms of Section 2 (6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”)?

b) If the Consultancy Services rendered to ADB, Manilla do not qualify as “export of services”, whether ADB would be required to obtain refund of GST charged on Invoice issued for Consultancy Services in terms of Section 55 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) or the services would be exempt as per provisions of the Asian Development Bank Act, 1966 (“ADB Act”)?

The issue before the authority now is to decide whether the Authority of advance ruling can determine the place of supply. In this regard, the applicant has claimed that the determination of place of supply would in effect decide whether a service qualifies as export of service or not. This would in turn determine the liability of the applicant to pay the tax on services, which is squarely within the power of “determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both” in terms of Section 97(2)(e) of the CGST Act.

The determination of place of supply is not covered under any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017.  Thus, to answer the question relating to determination of place of supply, is beyond the scope of advance ruling. This authority, therefore, cannot answer the first question in the application.

The second question is a conditional one and comes into existence only if the impugned services of the applicant do not qualify as “export of services”. This question becomes redundant as the first question cannot be answered by this authority. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection.

Held that- The application filed by the applicant for advance ruling is rejected.