Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for advance ruling was entertainable when the prescribed form and the fee required under the GST framework had not been fully complied with.
Analysis: The application was filed in an incomplete form and was not in FORM GST ARA-01. The prescribed fee under the advance ruling procedure had to be paid as required under the governing provisions and the relevant circular, and the manual filing arrangement contemplated by the circular did not dispense with compliance with the statutory fee requirement. The email communication relied upon by the applicant could not override the Act, the Rules, or the prescribed procedure. Since the applicant had not complied with the mandatory procedural requirements despite being informed and heard, the application was not fit to be entertained at that stage.
Conclusion: The application was held to be not entertainable for non-compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure and fee requirement, against the applicant.
Final Conclusion: The authority declined to proceed with the advance ruling request and left the applicant to seek refund and file a fresh application in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the prescribed form and fee requirement for an advance ruling application is mandatory, and non-compliance renders the application not entertainable.