Advance Ruling Application Dismissed for Falling Outside Prescribed Statutory Scope Under CGST Act Section 97(2)

SC rejected the applicant's Advance Ruling application under CGST Act 2017. The court found the submitted questions outside Section 97(2) scope, specifically regarding DTA supply procedures and Foreign Trade Policy interpretation. The application was dismissed without examining substantive merits, as the queries did not align with prescribed advance ruling categories.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions related to Advance Ruling under the CGST Act 2017.
2. Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 Mid Term Review on procurement of goods against Advance Authorisation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of provisions related to Advance Ruling under the CGST Act 2017:
The applicant, engaged in the manufacture of Textile Yarn, sought clarification on the procedure for supplies by Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to Advance Authorisation Holder and the applicability of a specific notification. The department opined that the questions raised did not fall under the purview of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017. The Authority noted that the questions did not align with the categories listed under Section 97(2) for seeking Advance Ruling. The first question regarding the procedure for supplies by DTA did not challenge the applicability of the notification but sought clarification, which was not mandated by the Act. Therefore, the Authority concluded that Question 1 did not warrant consideration under the Advance Ruling provisions.

Issue 2: Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 Mid Term Review on procurement of goods against Advance Authorisation:
The second question raised by the applicant concerned the applicability of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 Mid Term Review and the procedure for procuring goods from DTA against Advance Authorisation. The Authority determined that this question was also outside the scope of Section 97(2) as it pertained to the applicability of a trade policy, which was beyond the Authority's jurisdiction under the CGST Act 2017. Consequently, the application was deemed unworthy of admission due to being beyond the defined scope of Advance Ruling as per the Act.

In conclusion, the application for Advance Ruling was rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017/MPGST Act 2017, as the questions raised did not fall within the permissible categories for seeking Advance Ruling. The Authority emphasized that the questions regarding procedural clarifications and trade policy applicability were not within its mandate, leading to the dismissal of the application without delving into the merits of the case.

---