Advance Ruling— The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Advance Ruling.

The appellant has raised the following question for advance ruling in the application for Advance Ruling filed by it.

“Whether the Supply made by M/s INI Studio would qualify for exemption under Entry No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT as “Service” in relation to any functions entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution as a “Pure Service” having no element of goods so as to construe it as “Works Contract” as defined under Section 2(119) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017?”

The main issue before going into merits of the case is to decide whether the GAAR was right in rejecting appellant’s application under the provisions of Section 98 (2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 as being non-maintainable.

The appellant in its submission to Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling has submitted that it has sought the ruling in relation to the supply of services being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them but it was for “inward supply”. It is nowhere mentioned that it should be for Outward supply only. We find that the appellant has mainly stressed on the definition of “applicant” given under Section 95(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, according to which “applicant” means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act”. The appellant has failed to understand that the person who makes an application before the advance ruling authority or the appellate authority should be a person who is registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the CGST Act, 2017.

The provisions of Section 103 states that the ruling pronounced is binding only on the applicant. It is amply clears that if a recipient of supply obtains a ruling on the taxability of his inward supply of goods or services or both, the supplier of such goods or services or both is not bound by that ruling and he is free to assess the supply according to his own determination/understanding of law and hence ruling loses its relevance and applicability. Any provision of law has to be interpreted in a constructive and harmonious way keeping in mind the object of the purpose of the provision. Any interpretation, if it defeats the vary purpose of the provision of law is not only incorrect but also improper and bad in law.

Held that— The present appeal is non-maintainable as per the provisions of CGST Act.