Maharashtra AAR: GST Advance Ruling can be sought by supplier only and not by recipient of goods or services

In M/s. USV Pvt. Ltd.[ORDER No.GST-ARA-91/2019-20/B-77 dated October 14, 2021], M/s. USV Pvt. Ltd ("the Applicant") has sought an advance ruling on mainly two issues. The first issue pertains to whether the activity of transfer of registered trademarks by Novartis AG ("NAG") to the Applicant is a supply of goods or supply of services under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act")if yes then, whether the Applicant is liable to discharge Goods and Services 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 June 28, 2017.

Factually, the Applicant is a healthcare company in India registered under the GST regime and NAG is a Switzerland-based pharma company that owns rights of Trade Marks across the world including India. The said Trade Marks are registered in the name of NAG under the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 in India. AndVide a Deed of Assignment dated 30th November, 2019, NAG has agreed to permanently transfer the said Trademarks related to Indian Territory to the Applicant at an agreed consideration.And the 'Effective Date' as stated in the Deed is December 10, 2019 and the application has been filed on January 16, 2020.

The Hon’ble Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling ("the Mah AAR") pointed out that as per section 95 (a) of the CGST Act 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.

The Mah AAR rejected the subject application as being non-maintainable as per Section 95 of the CGST Act 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 a supply, which is being undertaken/proposed to be undertaken.

Further, Mah AAR find that in the subject case. the first condition mentioned above is not satisfied as much as NAG which is undertaking the supply and not the Applicant. And with respect to the second condition for the supply to be undertaken or proposed to be undertaken the Mah AAR observed that the Deed of Assignment is dated 30th November 2019, and the Effective Date as stated in the Deed is 10th December 2019 whereas the application has been filed on 16th January 2020.

In view of the above facts, the Mah AAR find that the Applicant’s application does not satisfy the conditions of Section 95 of the CGST Act and is therefore rejected as being not maintainable. Therefore, the second question is not taken up for discussion.