Jurisdictional Limitation: E-way Bill Provision Not Under Advance Ruling Authority

The application by M/s. Tamil Nadu Edible Oils Private Limited was rejected as the Advance Ruling Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide on e-way bill provisions, which are not within the scope of issues specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act. The applicant's query regarding the necessity of e-way bills for consignments with multiple invoices exceeding the limit was not addressed, leading to the rejection of the application under Section 98(2) of the Acts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Requirement of e-way bill for consignments with multiple invoices exceeding the specified limit.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, engaged in the business of Refining of Edible Oils, sought an Advance Ruling on the necessity of e-way bill for consignments involving multiple invoices to multiple customers moved together, where the value of each invoice is below the e-way bill generation limit but the aggregate value exceeds the limit.

2. The applicant owns transport vehicles for delivering goods to customers in Tamil Nadu without generating e-way bills for intra-state supplies up to Rs. 1,00,000. They argued that as per Rule 138(7) of CGST Rules, 2017, the transporter must generate an e-way bill if the aggregate consignment value exceeds Rs. 1,00,000, but this rule has not been notified. They interpreted the e-way bill requirement on an invoice basis, stating that no e-way bill is needed if each invoice value is below Rs. 1,00,000.

3. During the hearing, the applicant sought clarification on whether e-way bills are required for multiple consignments in a conveyance, each below Rs. 1,00,000. The Authority clarified that e-way bill provisions are not covered under Advance Ruling and advised the applicant to seek clarification from the GST office.

4. The specific issue for Advance Ruling was whether e-way bills are necessary for consignments with multiple invoices exceeding the e-way bill limit. However, the Authority noted that the scope of Advance Ruling is limited to issues specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act/TNGST Act, which does not include e-way bill provisions. Therefore, the application was rejected due to lack of jurisdiction.

5. The ruling stated that the application by M/s. Tamil Nadu Edible Oils Private Limited was rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, as the question raised did not fall within the scope of issues that the Advance Ruling Authority can decide under Section 97(2 of the Acts.

---