Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN – Dated:- 16-10-2018 – An application for Advance Ruling is to be filed in Form GST ARA -1. The application shall be made on the common portal. A fee of ₹ 5000/- is to be deposited for filing Advance Ruling. The fee shall be paid by internet banking or by using credit or debit cards or National Electronic Fund Transfer or Real Time Gross Settlement or by such other mode and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, shall be credited to the electronic cash ledger of such person to be maintained in such manner as may be prescribed. The application shall state the question on which the Advance Rulings is sought. The Authority for advance ruling constituted under the provisions of a State Goods and Services Tax Act or Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act shall be deemed to be the Authority for advance ruling in respect of that State or Union territory. Section 97(2) of the Act provides the questio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorized representative and the concerned officer or his authorized representative, by order, either admit or reject the application. The Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act. No application shall be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of hearing has been given to the applicant. Where the application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be specified in the order. The maintainability of the application is nothing but the admission of the application by the Authority to decide the question sought by the applicant for advance ruling. There are various factors for the non maintainability of applications. In this article the same are discussed with reference to the decisions of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
gn and Drawings to power and other projects, operating from Chennai and Bengaluru. The question for Advance Ruling is whether CGST & SGST or IGST is payable on the said supply. i.e., whether the transaction is an inter-state supply or intra-state supply? The Authority held that Section 97 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act (TNGST) has given the scope of Advance Ruling Authority, i.e., the question on which the Advance Ruling can be sought. Apart from list provided in Section 97(2), no other issue can be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority and therefore the Acts limit the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the issues earmarked for it under Section 97(2). The Application is therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case, on the issue of lack of jurisdiction. In re Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited – 2018 (10) TMI 303 – ARA, Gujarat, the applicant has requested for determination as to whether the activities provided by the applicant will be treated as export of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of supply is not covered by Section 97(2) of the Acts, this authority is helpless to answer the question raised in the application, as it is lacking jurisdiction to decide the issues. The jurisdiction of this authority does not extend to the questions on determination of place of supply . The Authority rejected the application. In re Kandla Port Trust (Deenadayal Port Trust) – 2018 (10) TMI 448 – ARA, Gujarat, the fact of the case is as follows- The applicant owns substantial amount of land at Gandhidham and Adipur location of Kutch District, which has been given on lease to various commercial and other organization for long time period, for which it had entered into lease agreements with various lessees long ago. The applicant revised rate of lease as per directions of Tariff Authority of Major Port, however, many lease holders have challenged the revised rate taking plea that it is against the terms of lease agreement. Some of the lessees are Government of India undertaking and the m
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f the Acts. Further, the issue of refund claim in case of conclusion o dispute after more than 2 years is also not covered by Section 97(2) of the Acts. The jurisdiction of the authority does not extend to the questions on determination of these issues. Pending proceedings Section 98(2) of the Act provides that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act In re Mosaic India Private Limited – 2018 (9) TMI 478 – ARA – Maharastra, the Authority held that in view of admission by the applicant at the time of Personal Hearing that in the present GST regime also, their import consignments have been provisionally assessed for classification and accordingly, applicability Of Customs duty and IGST on the same, their application is liable for rejection as per proviso to section 98 (2) of the CGST Act and therefore cannot be entertained
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
red an application seeking Advance Ruling on the following question. Since they are coming under exempted category, as per GST provisions, are they, liable to pay GST for the materials bought and construction services availed. The Advance Ruling sought is whether the Trust is liable to pay GST on receipt of Goods/Services, when the Charitable Trust is exempted under the GST Act 2017. It is made clear that the applicant does not make any of the supplies in question, but are in fact the recipients of the various supplies as stated in their application. Thus, the question is on the liability to pay tax on their purchase and not on the supply. The Authority held that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling Authority in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In the case at hand, the applicant is the proposed recipient of the proposed works contract and accordingly, does not fall within the definition of advance ruling. Hence
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
excess length? The jurisdictional officers have raised the objection with regard to admission of this advance ruling application and requested that it is to be rejected as the same issue is pending before the investigation authority on the same questions as raised in the application put forth before ARA Authority. The Authority held that the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 98 of the CGST Act, as proceedings are already initiated against them before the filing of their present application. Other grounds In re Ramway Foods Limited – 2018 (10) TMI 343 – ARA, UP, the Authority held that the applications for the advance ruling should be directly related to applicant in respect of supply of goods or services. In the instant case applicant is a recipient of goods and not the supplier or manufacturer of said goods. Since the applicant has sought question which is directly related to supplier of goods, the above said ruling does not appea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =