Mandatory GST advance ruling fee compliance required; failure to deposit prescribed fee justifies rejection at admission stage.

An advance ruling application must comply with the statutory requirements under the CGST Act and the corresponding State GST Act, including filing in the prescribed form, manner and fee. Where the ruling sought covers both CGST and SGST, the rules require payment of the prescribed fee under each head. The application here was not accompanied by the full mandatory fee, so it failed to satisfy the threshold condition for consideration. As a result, the application was held not maintainable and rejected at the admission stage. The stated principle is that compliance with the fee requirement is mandatory for admission of an advance ruling application.

---

---

Issues: Whether an advance ruling application can be admitted when it is not accompanied by the requisite fee prescribed under the GST law.

Analysis: The application for advance ruling was required to comply with section 97(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding provision of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which contemplate an application in the prescribed form, manner and fee. Rule 104 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and the corresponding State Rules prescribe a fee of Rs. 5,000 each under the CGST and SGST heads where the ruling sought relates to both enactments. Section 98(2) empowers the Authority to admit or reject the application after examination and hearing. Since the requisite total fee of Rs. 10,000 was not deposited, the application did not satisfy the statutory requirement for consideration.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable in the absence of the prescribed fee and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the statutory fee requirement is mandatory for admission of an advance ruling application, and non-deposit of the prescribed fee justifies rejection at the threshold.

---