Issues: Whether an appeal lies before the Appellate Authority against an order of the Authority for Advance Ruling rejecting an application under the first proviso to Section 98(2).

Analysis: Section 100(1) confines appellate jurisdiction to an advance ruling pronounced under Section 98(4). The impugned ruling rejected the application under the first proviso to Section 98(2), rather than pronouncing a ruling under Section 98(4). Such rejection is therefore outside the class of rulings appealable under Section 100(1).

Conclusion: An appeal against rejection of an advance-ruling application under Section 98(2) is not maintainable before the Appellate Authority.

Issues: Whether an advance-ruling application concerning amounts already received under an arbitral award, and whose tax treatment had already been adopted in returns, was maintainable under the statutory advance-ruling framework.

Analysis: An advance ruling under Section 95(a) is confined to supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. Section 97 identifies permissible subjects for a ruling but does not enlarge this jurisdictional requirement. The contractual work was completed before GST, the arbitral award had been made, the settlement amount received, and the applicant had filed returns treating the receipts as non-taxable. The application therefore sought confirmation of an already adopted tax position rather than advance certainty. Characterisation of the individual award components would require detailed scrutiny of contracts, arbitral proceedings, accounts, returns and evidence, which lies within the statutory adjudicatory jurisdiction of the proper officer. Section 142(2)(a) applies only where there is a genuine upward revision of the price of pre-GST supplies; an arbitral award cannot automatically be equated with such revision. Further, the test under Section 142(11)(a) is whether tax was leviable under the earlier law, not whether it was actually paid.

Conclusion: The advance-ruling application was not maintainable and ought not to have been entertained; no final determination was made on the GST taxability of the arbitral-award amounts.

Issues: Whether the operation and management of Government Urban Health and Wellness Centres, Urban Ayushman Arogya Mandirs and Polyclinics constitutes exempt healthcare services provided by a clinical establishment under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The contractual scope required the operator to establish and run healthcare facilities, deploy medical and paramedical personnel, and deliver diagnosis, treatment, preventive and curative care, diagnostics, medicines, referrals and public-health interventions. These activities formed a naturally bundled composite supply whose predominant and essential character was healthcare delivery. The administrative, operational, monitoring and reporting obligations were ancillary to that principal supply and could not be artificially segregated to classify the arrangement as facility-management or support services.

Analysis: The executing agency only implemented and administered the Government programme and routed payments from Government grants. Its role, and its liability to make payment, did not alter the actual nature of services supplied through the clinical establishments to members of the public. Healthcare services remain characterised by their substance and dominant purpose, notwithstanding that consideration is paid through a Government-appointed implementing agency rather than directly by patients.

Conclusion: The services are healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment and are exempt from GST under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issues: Whether supply of tobacco-based and herbal hookah through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant, with attendant facilities, qualifies as restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Paragraph 6(b) creates a deeming fiction only for supplies made as part of a service where the goods supplied are food, any other article for human consumption, or drink. The provisions concerning composite supply and principal supply govern tax consequences only after the transaction satisfies the statutory description of the relevant category; they cannot enlarge the scope of restaurant service. The rate notification likewise cannot extend the parent statutory provision.

Analysis: Applying the common parlance test, ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, the expression "any other article for human consumption" takes its meaning from food and drink and is confined to articles of a like character ordinarily consumed by eating or drinking. Hookah, whether tobacco-based or herbal, is ordinarily understood as being smoked and not as food, drink, or an article akin to them. Its preparation, apparatus, restaurant ambience and attendant service do not alter this statutory character. The separate fiscal and regulatory treatment of tobacco products contextually supports this interpretation; the conclusion regarding herbal hookah independently follows from the interpretation of paragraph 6(b).

Conclusion: Tobacco-based and herbal hookah supplied through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant do not qualify as restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and are taxable as supplies of goods under the applicable classification and rate notifications. The conclusion is against the assessee.

Issues: Whether sun-cured tobacco leaves procured from farmers and supplied as such, or after grading, bundling or butting, retain their character as tobacco leaves under Entry No. 162 of Schedule I to Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), or whether such goods become classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401.

Analysis: The classification turned on whether curing, grading, bundling and butting altered the essential character of the goods. The expression "tobacco leaves" in the rate notification was not restricted to fresh or green leaves, and the HSN notes under Heading 2401 recognised cured tobacco leaves within the tariff structure. The clarification in Circular No. 332/2/2017-TRU did not exclude cured leaves, and the processes of grading, bundling and butting were found to be incidental handling operations not resulting in a new commodity. The ruling relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished on facts, while the advance rulings supporting the assessee's stand were treated as persuasive only.

Conclusion: Sun-cured tobacco leaves, and tobacco leaves subjected only to grading, bundling or butting, continue to be classifiable as tobacco leaves and are chargeable at the concessional GST rate under Entry No. 162 of Schedule I.

Issues: Whether supply of an electric three-wheeler (e-rickshaw) in completely knocked down form is classifiable as a finished electrically operated vehicle attracting the lower GST rate, or as individual parts and components.

Analysis: Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 applies where the goods supplied, though incomplete, unassembled or disassembled, possess the essential character of the complete article. The Authority accepted the broad principle that CKD supply of an e-rickshaw may, in an appropriate case, be treated as supply of the finished vehicle, but the specific test of supplying a motor together with any three of the other identified components was not found to flow from Rule 2(a), the tariff entry, or the GST notification. The correct inquiry is whether all components necessary to assemble a complete e-rickshaw are supplied together as one identifiable kit or package, and whether the contemporaneous documents consistently show a CKD/SKD supply rather than sale of separate parts. The record showed that the respondent was not a manufacturer supplying complete e-rickshaws in CKD form, but was dealing in individual components.

Conclusion: The earlier view that supply of a motor with any three identified components is sufficient was disapproved, and classification as an electrically operated vehicle was confined to cases where a complete CKD/SKD kit of the e-rickshaw is actually supplied; otherwise the goods remain classifiable as parts and components.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit on services availed for a qualified institutional placement is admissible to the extent the funds were used for repayment or pre-payment of borrowings; (ii) Whether input tax credit on services availed for a qualified institutional placement is admissible to the extent the funds were used for investment in a wholly owned subsidiary.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit on services availed for a qualified institutional placement is admissible to the extent the funds were used for repayment or pre-payment of borrowings.

Analysis: The entitlement under Section 16(1) depends on whether the input services are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business. Repayment of borrowings was treated as a business-linked financial activity, since reducing debt obligations improves liquidity, lowers interest burden, and supports commercial operations. The services used for raising funds to meet this purpose were therefore regarded as having a business nexus.

Conclusion: Input tax credit is admissible to the extent the qualified institutional placement proceeds were utilised for repayment or pre-payment of borrowings, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit on services availed for a qualified institutional placement is admissible to the extent the funds were used for investment in a wholly owned subsidiary.

Analysis: Although the investment was projected as strategically beneficial, the immediate activity remained acquisition of securities for deployment in a separate legal entity. The authority held that a holding company and its subsidiary are distinct entities and that the requisite direct nexus between the input services and the appellant's own business was not established for this component.

Conclusion: Input tax credit is not admissible to the extent the qualified institutional placement proceeds were utilised for investment in the subsidiary, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The ruling was modified by allowing credit only for the portion of QIP-related services attributable to repayment or pre-payment of borrowings, while denying credit for the portion attributable to investment in the subsidiary; the appeal succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit on fund-raising services is available only where the proceeds are applied to business purposes that satisfy the statutory requirement of use in the course or furtherance of business, and not where the expenditure is attributable to investment in a separate legal entity without a direct business nexus.

Issues: Whether the appellant's supply of food to corporate clients was correctly classified as a supply of service falling under tariff heading 996337 and taxable under the residual entry of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), instead of being treated as restaurant service taxable at 5%.

Analysis: The appellant's activity was examined in the light of the contractual arrangements with corporate clients and partner kitchens, the extent of involvement in menu finalisation, quality control, hygiene checks, delivery arrangements, and serving arrangements. On those facts, the supply was held not to be a mere aggregation or sale of goods, but a supply of food by way of service within paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The activity was found not to answer the description of restaurant service, since there was no restaurant, eating joint, mess, or canteen premise shown to exist for the supply. The dominant intention test was also applied and was held not to alter the character of the supply, because the principal supply remained food service under tariff heading 996337. As the activity did not fall within entries 7(i) to 7(v) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the residual entry 7(vi) was applied, attracting 18% GST.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the appellate authority was upheld, and the appellant's challenge to the 18% tax treatment failed.

Issues: Whether the services of sales and marketing consulting and manpower or HR consulting supplied to the foreign entity constituted export of services or intermediary services, and whether the appellant was entitled to zero-rating and refund of unutilized input tax credit.

Analysis: The agreement and surrounding facts showed that the appellant performed on-the-ground market services in India, coordinated with the local client's team, and rendered services in connection with the foreign entity's engagement with an Indian client. The Authority found that the arrangement involved three parties and that the appellant facilitated the supply of services between the foreign entity and the Indian client, which brought the activity within the definition of intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. For intermediary services, the place of supply is the location of the supplier under Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On that basis, the services were treated as taxable in India and not as export of services under Section 2(6), so the conditions for zero-rating and refund of unutilized input tax credit were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The services were correctly classified as intermediary services taxable in India, and they did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply; refund of unutilized input tax credit was not allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contractual arrangement shows that a supplier facilitates the foreign client's services to an Indian client and the activity is performed in India, the supply is intermediary service with the place of supply at the supplier's location and cannot be treated as export of services.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the departmental appeal was liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether the end customer received an independent Goods Transport Agency service from the respondent; (iii) Whether the impugned activity was classifiable as Goods Transport Agency service or as courier/logistics/fulfilment service; and (iv) Whether the activity was eligible for exemption under Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the departmental appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Under Section 100(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding West Bengal enactment, the delay was within the condonable period. The delayed receipt of the certified order and the time required for departmental scrutiny of records, tax provisions and grounds of appeal constituted sufficient cause; the delay was bona fide and not attributable to deliberate inaction or negligence.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted for consideration on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the end customer received an independent Goods Transport Agency service from the respondent.

Analysis: The standard Buyer Terms of Use referred only to an unspecified transporter. The customer neither identified nor selected the respondent, negotiated freight, chose the transport mode or route, or exercised control over carriage. Absence of certainty regarding the contracting service provider prevented consensus ad idem and privity of contract for an independent contract of carriage. Recovery of an amount described as transportation or GT charges could not alone establish an independent supply to the customer or make the customer the recipient under Section 2(93) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The end customer was not the recipient of an independent GTA service. This issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned activity was classifiable as Goods Transport Agency service or as courier/logistics/fulfilment service.

Analysis: Classification depends upon the substance over form and commercial substance of the transaction, rather than labels in invoices, terms of use or documents styled as consignment notes. A consignment note is an essential feature of GTA services but is not conclusive by itself; the carriage arrangement must be genuine and the document must contain material particulars. The use of last-mile two-wheelers or electric vehicles, without established goods-carriage compliance and complete vehicle particulars, further undermined the GTA claim. Hub-based collection, sorting, transshipment, tracking and doorstep delivery formed an integrated organised fulfilment operation directed at completing e-commerce deliveries, rather than conventional road carriage under a GTA arrangement. Artificial bifurcation of charges could not alter that classification.

Conclusion: The activity was not classifiable as GTA service; it was properly classifiable as taxable courier/logistics/fulfilment service. This issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether the activity was eligible for exemption under Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The exemption requires a sustainable GTA supply to an unregistered recipient. Since no independent GTA supply to the end customer was established and the activity was found to be courier/logistics/fulfilment service in substance, the foundational requirements of the exemption entry were absent.

Conclusion: Exemption under Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 was unavailable. This issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The proposed e-commerce delivery arrangement is taxable according to its real commercial character as an organised courier/logistics/fulfilment service, and not as an exempt independent GTA supply to end customers.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification and exemption under GST must follow the real commercial substance of the supply; contractual labels, separate charge descriptions and a document styled as a consignment note cannot establish an independent exempt GTA service where the transaction is substantively an integrated e-commerce delivery operation.

Issues: Whether the product "Brake Hoses" is classifiable under Heading 4009 as tubes, pipes and hoses of vulcanized rubber with or without fittings, or under Headings 8708/8714 as motor vehicle parts and accessories, and the applicable GST rate.

Analysis: The classification was examined under the GST tariff read with the Customs Tariff and the General Rules for Interpretation. Heading 4009 specifically covers vulcanized rubber hoses with or without fittings. By contrast, Chapter XVII applies only if the goods are not excluded by Section Note 2 and are suitable for use solely or principally with the vehicles covered by that section, and they must not be more specifically covered elsewhere. The product was found to consist predominantly of vulcanized rubber, with fittings forming only a minor component, and its essential character was held to be that of a hose. The notes to Section XVII expressly exclude articles of vulcanized rubber from motor-vehicle part classification when they are more specifically covered under Chapter 40. Reliance was also placed on the tariff entry in Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and on Notification No. 72/93-Cus, which treated brake hoses/radiator hoses with or without fittings under Heading 40.09.

Conclusion: Brake Hoses are classifiable under Heading 4009 of Chapter 40 and attract GST at 18%, not under Headings 8708/8714.

Issues: Whether the appeal could be finally decided on a factual basis materially different from the facts placed before the original advance ruling authority, and whether the matter had to be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellant's appeal and submissions at the hearing introduced a factual matrix that was materially different from the facts stated before the original authority, including the nature of the business relationship and the existence of scheme documents governing incentives. In view of this divergence, the appellate authority found that it could not properly adjudicate the correctness of the original ruling on the existing record. The appropriate course was to send the matter back to the original authority so that the controversy could be examined afresh on the corrected factual foundation, with observance of natural justice.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original advance ruling authority for fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether input tax credit of GST paid on long-term lease rental for land taken from the Government for construction of a factory is barred under Section 17(5)(d), including for the periods before and after construction, for vacant portions of the leased land, and for repairs, maintenance and renovation of the factory building.

Analysis: The restriction in Section 17(5)(d) is framed with a non obstante clause overriding Section 16 and blocks credit on goods or services received for construction of an immovable property on own account, including where such supplies are used in the course or furtherance of business. The expression "for construction" was construed by the Authority and affirmed here according to its ordinary purposive meaning, and the credit bar was held to apply to services received for the purpose of constructing the factory on leased land. The distinction between upfront premium and periodic lease rent was accepted, but it was held immaterial to eligibility because the tax treatment followed the statutory character of the lease service and the intended construction use of the land. The explanation to Section 17(5) extends "construction" to reconstruction, renovation, additions, alterations and repairs, so the same restriction applies to lease rental linked with repair and renovation activity. The vacant or green-belt portion of the land was also treated as part of the leased land devoted to the factory project, and the periodic timing of payment before or after construction was held not to change the statutory bar. Reliance on business-purpose credit under Section 16, on a restrictive reading of "for", and on differential treatment based on payment periodicity was rejected.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on GST paid on the lease rental was held to be inadmissible in all the situations raised, and the credit block under Section 17(5)(d) was applied against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned advance ruling was affirmed, and the appeal was rejected because the lease rental was treated as blocked credit under the statutory restriction governing construction of immovable property.

Ratio Decidendi: GST paid on a lease rental for land taken for constructing an immovable property is blocked by Section 17(5)(d) when the lease service is received for the purpose of such construction, and the timing of payment or the existence of vacant or repair-related use does not remove the statutory bar.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority was required to interfere with the Advance Ruling on eligibility of the applicant's compostable plastic bags for the concessional rate under Serial No. 319 of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, and whether the authority under GST could itself conclusively determine biodegradability or compostability.

Analysis: The bags were held to fall under Chapter 39 as plastic articles, irrespective of their biodegradable character. The concessional entry applied only to biodegradable bags, but the determination of biodegradability and compostability was treated as a scientific and technical to be examined by the competent environmental authorities and not within the scope of advance ruling under Section 97(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The records and certificates produced by the appellant were found insufficient for the Appellate Authority to substitute its own technical assessment, and it was observed that jurisdictional GST field formation may draw samples and obtain testing for that purpose.

Conclusion: The Advance Ruling was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST advance ruling forum cannot itself conclusively determine biodegradability or compostability, which remains a technical question for the competent environmental authorities, and concessional entry eligibility linked to that condition cannot be granted on the basis of such technical determination alone.

Issues: (i) Whether geomembranes manufactured from HDPE strips and laminated with plastic are classifiable under Heading 5911 as textile products and articles for technical uses, or under Heading 3926 as plastic articles.

Analysis: The product was found to be manufactured by weaving HDPE tapes/strips into fabric and then subjecting the fabric to further lamination and processing, resulting in geomembranes used for technical purposes. The same product and manufacturing process had already been examined by the jurisdictional High Court in an identical matter, where it was held that geomembranes fall under Chapter 59 and not Chapter 39. The earlier contrary rulings relied upon by the Department were distinguished and could not override the binding effect of the jurisdictional High Court's decision on the same product and facts.

Conclusion: Geomembranes are classifiable under Heading 5911 and not under Heading 3926, and the advance ruling was correctly upheld.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed, and the classification of geomembranes as textile products for technical use was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the product and manufacturing process are identical, the jurisdictional High Court's final ruling on tariff classification is binding and geomembranes manufactured by weaving HDPE strips and further laminating them are classifiable as textile products for technical uses under Heading 5911.

Issues: (i) whether GST paid on transfer of leasehold rights was hit by the blocked credit provision as consideration for construction of an immovable property on the assessee's own account; (ii) whether the Air Separation Plant qualified as plant and machinery so as to fall outside the credit restriction.

Issue (i): whether GST paid on transfer of leasehold rights was hit by the blocked credit provision as consideration for construction of an immovable property on the assessee's own account.

Analysis: The transaction was not treated as a bare lease of land. It was held to be an inward supply enabling the assessee to secure long-term leasehold rights together with existing shed and superstructures for establishing a manufacturing facility. The expression "construction" in the blocked-credit provision was construed broadly to include re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations to the extent of capitalisation. On that basis, the service received from IPL was found to be integrally connected with construction of the manufacturing facility on the assessee's own account and the capitalised cost formed part of the project cost.

Conclusion: The restriction under Section 17(5)(d) applied, and the credit was not admissible on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the Air Separation Plant qualified as plant and machinery so as to fall outside the credit restriction.

Analysis: The definition of plant and machinery under the GST law was applied strictly, requiring apparatus, equipment or machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support and used for outward supplies, while excluding land, building and other civil structures. The Plant was found to be an integrated industrial installation erected on a long-term leased site, intended for permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land, and not merely detachable equipment fixed for operational stability. The criteria of annexation, object of annexation, intendment and marketability were applied, and the installation was held not to answer the statutory description of plant and machinery.

Conclusion: The Air Separation Plant did not qualify as plant and machinery for the purpose of the blocked-credit exception.

Final Conclusion: Input tax credit on the GST charged for transfer of leasehold rights was held to be blocked under the statutory restriction governing construction of immovable property, and the assessee's claim to avail the credit failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service is received to facilitate construction of a manufacturing facility on the recipient's own account, and the resulting installation does not satisfy the statutory definition of plant and machinery, input tax credit is blocked under the specific exclusion provision.

Issues: Whether the applicable GST rate on two men's pyjama sets packed in a single pack must be determined per pack (treating the multi-pack as a single retail unit) or per piece/set (treating each pyjama set as a separate piece for the purpose of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 9/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025).

Analysis: The Appellate Authority examined the nature of the product (a pyjama set consisting of one top and one bottom), the packing (two such sets in a single pack per buyer instruction), the language of the relevant notifications and schedules which prescribe rates based on sale value "per piece", and the ordinary meaning and commercial understanding of "pyjama set" as a piece comprising top and bottom. The Authority considered whether a multi-pack containing multiple sets should be treated as a single retail unit for rate threshold purposes and observed that a pack containing multiple sets does not necessarily become a single retail unit; the relevant determination under the Notifications is the sale value per piece, where a piece is an independently usable apparel (here, one pyjama set). The Authority applied the notified schedules (Schedule I and Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017 and the amended thresholds in Notification No. 9/2025) to the facts: the pack price of Rs. 1,371 represents two pieces (two pyjama sets), producing a per-piece price below the notified threshold, and therefore falling within the lower rate entry.

Conclusion: The Appellate Authority upheld the AAR ruling that each pyjama set (one top and one bottom) is a "piece" for the purposes of the Notifications; since the effective sale value per piece is Rs. 686 (less than the notified threshold), the transaction is liable to GST at 5% (CGST 2.5% + SGST 2.5%) and the appeal is dismissed.

Issues: Whether the appeal against the advance ruling on GST exemption for dredging and desilting services should be decided on merits when the same transaction had already been taken up in separate statutory proceedings, and whether the Authority should refrain from recording findings on the exemption question.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of without any opinion on the merits, and the substantive exemption issue was left open for consideration in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the impugned Advance Ruling holding the application to be non-maintainable can be sustained where relevant documentary material was not before the Authority for Advance Ruling and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The appellate power under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling to confirm or modify the ruling appealed against. The impugned ruling recorded that certain documents and test-report credentials were not furnished to the Authority for Advance Ruling and, on that basis, declared the application non-maintainable. Subsequent to that ruling, the appellant placed before the Appellate Authority purchase and sales invoices and asserted availability of additional records which were not considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling. The newly produced material requires verification for factual accuracy and relevance before any determination on classification or rate can be made. Where the original authority has not adjudicated the substantive question due to absence of material, the appropriate course is to set aside the impugned ruling and remit the matter to the Authority for Advance Ruling to consider the issue afresh after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing and examining the records now available.

Conclusion: The impugned Advance Ruling dated 21.03.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh decision after verification of documents and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal against Advance Ruling No. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 can be condoned under the proviso to Section 100(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Appellate Authority considered the appellant's evidence that the Advance Ruling was received in October 2025 and that repeated attempts to file the appeal online were unsuccessful due to a recurring portal error, supported by screenshots and a helpdesk ticket. The appeal was filed physically on 10.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 28 days beyond the normal 30-day period. The proviso to Section 100(2) allows the Appellate Authority to admit an appeal presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the original period. The Authority found the documentary evidence of technical failure and helpdesk interaction credible and sufficient to constitute a preventing cause within the meaning of the proviso.

Conclusion: The delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned under the proviso to Section 100(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the appeal is admitted for consideration on merits.