Joshop Prabakar: In a landmark Judgement, the Kerala High Court in the case of Sutherland Mortgage Services, Inc, has held that the Advance Ruling Authority had committed an error in not giving a ruling to the assessee citing lack of jurisdiction

[3/4, 19:39] Joshop Prabakar: In a landmark Judgement, the Kerala High Court in the case of Sutherland Mortgage Services, Inc, has held that the Advance Ruling Authority had committed an error in not giving a ruling to the assessee citing lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the Advance Ruling Authority has proceeded on a tangent and has missed the crucial aspect of the matter and has taken a very hyper technical view that it does not have jurisdiction for the simple reason that the said issue is not expressly enumerated in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Court held that the issue relating to ‘determination of place of supply’, which is one of the crucial issues to be determined as to whether or not it fulfils the definition of ‘place of service’, would also come within the ambit of the larger of issue of “determination of liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both” as envisaged in clause (e) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act., 2017
The Court held that India is at the cusp of great global changes and there cannot be any two opinions that with extreme hard work and industry, India had to progress economically, socially and in all spheres. Further, the Court held that a foreign entity would like to have precision and certainty about tax liability so that they can accordingly modulate their future outlook.
The Court thus allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the rejection order passed by the AAR and remitted the matter back to the Advance Ruling Authority for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law.
[3/4, 19:44] Sekarreporter 1: Ok sir