Advance Ruling— Section 97 of CGST Act— In the instant case, the applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions:

a. Whether ITC can be claimed by the applicant on common services such as CISF & Township Security Services, Maintenance of Water Treatment Plant, Horticulture, Maintenance of Residential Quarters, Maintenance of Information System (Computers, Software & Electronic Equipment), Maintenance of Sewage Treatment Plant, etc. which are utilized for both taxable as well as exempted supply of Varnika (IMU) and printing press of rupee note located in Mysuru Unit?

b. Whether method followed by the applicant in connection with claiming of Input Tax Credit is in accordance with the provisions of law?

c. Turnover of which financial year to be considered in Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 while calculating ineligible ITC for the invoices which were accounted in the books of accounts in the FY 2019-20, however ITC was claimed during April to September of FY 2020-21 as per Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017?

Manner of claim of ITC is determined in terms of Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the impugned issue is not covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence this authority refrains from giving any ruling in this regard.

Held that— The impugned questions are not covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017, which specifies the issues on which the advance ruling can be sought by the applicant and hence this authority refrains from giving any ruling.