The applicant has firstly raised questions as a recipient of services and secondly the questions are in respect of past and completed supply as on the date of the application and not supply, which is being undertaken/proposed to be undertaken. Therefore the subject application is rejected as being non-maintainable as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Nature of supply— The applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions.
1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the activity of transfer of registered trademarks by Novartis AG to the applicant is a ‘supply of goods’ or supply or services’ under the CGST, Act, 2017/IGST Act, 2017?
2. If the activity is held to be a supply of service, whether the applicant is liable to discharge Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the subject transaction under reverse charge mechanism in terms of entry no. 1 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?
3. In case it is held to be a supply of service and the applicant is liable to discharge GST under reverse charge mechanism, whether the said ‘supply of service’ is classifiable under entry no. 17 (i) of Notification No. 8/2017-lntegrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended)?
As per Section 95 (a) there are two conditions to be fulfilled for making an advance ruling application: firstly, the question asked should be in relation to supply undertaken by the applicant and secondly the question should be in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Held that— Based on the submissions made by the applicant and hearings conducted, the subject application is rejected as being non-maintainable as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 because the applicant has firstly raised questions as a recipient of services and secondly the questions are in respect of past and completed supply as on the date of the application and not supply, which is being undertaken/proposed to be undertaken.
The applicant has firstly raised questions as a recipient of services and secondly the questions are in respect of past and completed supply as on the date of the application and not supply, which is being undertaken/proposed to be undertaken. Therefore the subject application is rejected as being non-maintainable as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Nature of supply— The applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions.
1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the activity of transfer of registered trademarks by Novartis AG to the applicant is a ‘supply of goods’ or supply or services’ under the CGST, Act, 2017/IGST Act, 2017?
2. If the activity is held to be a supply of service, whether the applicant is liable to discharge Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the subject transaction under reverse charge mechanism in terms of entry no. 1 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?
3. In case it is held to be a supply of service and the applicant is liable to discharge GST under reverse charge mechanism, whether the said ‘supply of service’ is classifiable under entry no. 17 (i) of Notification No. 8/2017-lntegrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended)?
As per Section 95 (a) there are two conditions to be fulfilled for making an advance ruling application: firstly, the question asked should be in relation to supply undertaken by the applicant and secondly the question should be in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Held that— Based on the submissions made by the applicant and hearings conducted, the subject application is rejected as being non-maintainable as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 because the applicant has firstly raised questions as a recipient of services and secondly the questions are in respect of past and completed supply as on the date of the application and not supply, which is being undertaken/proposed to be undertaken.