Advance Ruling Request Denied: DIPP Notification Interpretation Falls Outside Permissible GST Legislative Scope Under Section 97(2)

The SC rejected the advance ruling request regarding a DIPP notification's applicability. The Authority determined that the specific questions raised by the applicant fell outside the scope of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the application was not entertained, with the Joint Commissioner's report notwithstanding. The ruling emphasized strict interpretation of permissible advance ruling categories under GST legislation.

---

---

Issues involved:
Applicability of notification dated 5.10.2017 issued by DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry read with CBEC Circular No. 1060/9/2017-Cx on:
(a) Change in ownership of an eligible unit under slump sale agreement.
(b) Shifting of an eligible unit to a new location.
(c) Addition or modification in plant/machinery or production of new products after taking over an eligible unit.

Analysis:

1. The application was filed seeking an advance ruling on the applicability of a notification related to specific issues regarding the change in ownership of an eligible unit, shifting of the unit to a new location, and modifications in plant/machinery or production of new products after acquisition.

2. An advance ruling under GST involves a decision provided by the authority to an applicant on matters specified in the relevant sections of the CGST Act concerning the supply of goods or services being undertaken or proposed by the applicant.

3. Section 97(2) of the CGST Act allows applicants to seek advance rulings on various issues such as classification of goods/services, applicability of notifications, determination of time/value of supply, admissibility of input tax credit, liability to pay tax, registration requirements, and whether certain actions amount to supply of goods/services.

4. The applicant in this case sought a ruling on the notification issued by DIPP along with a related circular dated 27th November 2017.

5. The Joint Commissioner submitted a report stating that the benefit under the notification may be extended to the assessee in question.

6. The Authority noted that the clarification sought by the applicant was not issued under the provisions of the CGST Act, and the questions raised did not fall under the categories specified in Section 97(2) of the Act for seeking advance rulings.

7. Consequently, the Authority concluded that the questions raised by the applicant did not fall within its purview as established under the CGST Act, and therefore, the request for an advance ruling on the mentioned issues was deemed not entertainable.

---