GST rate for job work on textile fabrics: Advance Ruling denied, issue already decided

The Authority for Advance Ruling ruled that the applicant's request for an advance ruling on the GST rate for job work involving printing and coloring of textile fabrics was not admissible under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, as the issue had already been decided by the SGST authorities in Sikandrabad. The ruling was considered valid unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of GST rate on job work of printing and coloring of textile fabrics provided by the manufacturer.

Analysis:
The applicant, a registered assessee under GST, sought an advance ruling on the GST rate applicable to the job work of printing and coloring textile fabrics. The applicant engaged in printing and dyeing of textile fabrics provided by the manufacturer, using colors, dyes, and chemicals through printing machines, with some manual printing involved. The applicant referred to a GST Council decision and a notification to support a 5% GST rate on such job work. The application was forwarded to the Jurisdictional GST Officer, who reported that the applicant's work constituted a composite supply involving the use of his own materials, leading to a liability on the service part only. The officer also noted that the job work did not fall under manufacturing services as no new textile product emerged. The GST Council had notified dyeing and coloring services under HSN heading 9997 chargeable at 9%.

During a personal hearing, the applicant reiterated their submission, emphasizing that they provided printing, design, and coloring services on textile fabrics as per the manufacturer's requirements, using colors, dyes, and chemicals through printing machines and manually. The applicant highlighted the significant proportion of inputs required for color printing on textile fabrics.

The Authority for Advance Ruling examined the applicant's submissions and the jurisdictional authority's actions. It noted the rejection of the applicant's refund claim by the jurisdictional authority, which extensively discussed the classification and rate of duty for the applicant's activities. Referring to the proviso of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the Authority observed that the question raised by the applicant had already been decided by the jurisdictional authority, and the applicant had not appealed against the refund rejection order.

Consequently, the Authority ruled that the application would not be admitted under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the question raised had already been addressed by the SGST authorities in Sikandrabad. The ruling was deemed valid subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

---