Authority rejects request on foot/floor mat classification under CGST due to non-appearance.

The Authority for Advance Ruling in Haryana rejected the applicant's request for clarification on the classification of foot/floor mats for motor vehicles made of Carpets and PVC Plastic due to the applicant's non-appearance and failure to seek an adjournment. This decision was made in accordance with the provisions of the CGST/HGST Act, which require rulings to be issued within 90 days of receiving the application, and failure to comply resulted in rejection under Section 98(2) of the Act.

---

---

Issues: Classification of foot/floor mats for motor vehicles under GST

Issue 1: Classification of foot/floor mats made of Carpets (Chapter 57)
The applicant sought clarification on the classification of foot/floor mats made of Carpets under Chapter 57, designed solely for motor vehicle manufacturers. However, the applicant failed to appear before the Authority for Advance Ruling despite being called upon. As per Section 98(6) of the CGST/HGST Act, the Authority is required to pronounce a ruling within 90 days of receiving the application. Since the applicant did not appear and did not seek an adjournment, the application was rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Issue 2: Classification of foot/floor mats made of PVC Plastic (Chapter 39)
Similarly, the applicant also sought clarification on the classification of foot/floor mats made of PVC Plastic under Chapter 39, designed for motor vehicle manufacturers. However, due to the applicant's non-appearance and failure to seek an adjournment, the application for Advance Ruling was rejected by the Authority under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Issue 3: Classification of foot/floor mats made of Carpets (Chapter 56) and PVC Plastic (Chapter 39)
Lastly, the applicant requested clarification on the classification of foot/floor mats made of a top layer of Carpets falling under Chapter 56 and a lower layer of PVC Plastic under Chapter 39, intended for motor vehicle manufacturers. Despite being called upon to appear before the Authority, the applicant did not show up or request an adjournment. Consequently, in line with the statutory requirement to issue rulings within 90 days, the application was rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

In conclusion, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana, rejected the applicant's request for clarification on the classification of foot/floor mats for motor vehicles due to the applicant's non-appearance and failure to seek an adjournment, in accordance with the provisions of the CGST/HGST Act.

---