Ram Bharose, intends to start business of supply and selling of the specified goods in Delhi as proprietor. However, he is not able to determine because of the complexity of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 as to: (i

(a) Classification issue can be raised: Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 stipulates the questions/matters on which advance ruling can be sought. It provides that advance ruling can be sought inter alia for determining the classification of any goods or services or both. Therefore, Ram Bharose can seek the advance ruling for determining the classification of the goods proposed to be supplied by him. (b) Place of supply issue cannot be raised: Determination of place of supply is not one of the specified questions/matters on which advance ruling can be sought under section 97(2). Further, section 96 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that AAR constituted under the provisions of SGST Act/ UTGST Act shall be deemed to be the AAR in respect of that State/ Union territory under CGST Act. This implies that ruling given by AAR will be applicable only within the jurisdiction of the concerned State/ Union territory. Hence, Ram Bharose cannot seek the advance ruling for determining the place of supply of the goods proposed to be supplied from Delhi to buyers in Newyork. However in the case of Sutherland Mortgage Services INC Vs Principal Commissioner (Kerala High Court) , it was held that Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has jurisdiction to determine Place of Supply under GST.