2021 (1) TMI 696 - AAR - GST

GST Advance Ruling Application Rejected for Repetitive Questions

In Re: M/s. Garuda Power Pvt. Ltd.

The Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal, rejected the application as the first two questions had been previously addressed in a ruling under the GST ... Classification of supply - supply of goods and onsite services in SEZ area to SEZ units or SEZ developers - zero-rated supply or not - section 16 of the IGST Act,2017 - levy of GST for the supply of goods or services to SEZ units or SEZ developers - documentation required for the supply of goods or service to SEZ unit - HELD THAT:- The questions are admissible under section 97(2)(e) of the Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter called the GST Act). But, this authority answered both the questions by a IN RE : GARUDA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [2018 (8) TMI 212 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, WEST BENGAL] while disposing of an application dated 22/06/2018 by the same applicant. The questions raised have, therefore, been already decided in a proceeding under the GST Act. A fresh application on those two questions cannot be admitted in terms of the 1st proviso to section 98(2) of the GST Act. Documentation is required for the supply of goods or service to SEZ units - HELD THAT:- An Advance ruling can be sought on the issues specified in section 97(2) of the GST Act. The issue raised in the third questions does not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses under section 97(2) of the GST Act. This authority, therefore, rejects the application under section 98(2) of the GST Act. Issues:1. Whether the supply of goods and onsite services in SEZ area to SEZ units or SEZ developers is a zero-rated supply under section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017.2. Whether any GST is to be charged for the supply of goods or services to SEZ units or SEZ developers.3. What documentation is required for the supply of goods or service to SEZ units.Analysis:1. The Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal, addressed the first two questions raised by the applicant in a previous ruling dated 01/08/2018. As the questions had already been decided in a proceeding under the GST Act, a fresh application on those issues could not be admitted as per the 1st proviso to section 98(2) of the GST Act. The authority found that the questions had been previously answered, leading to the rejection of the application under section 98(2) of the GST Act.2. During a personal hearing on 12/10/2020, the applicant sought a ruling on the third question regarding the documentation required for the supply of goods or service to SEZ units. However, an Advance ruling can only be sought on the issues specified in section 97(2) of the GST Act. Since the issue raised in the third question did not fall within the ambit of any clauses under section 97(2) of the GST Act, the authority rejected the application on this basis as well.3. The concerned officer from the revenue did not object to the admissibility of the application, stating that the questions raised were not pending or decided in any previous proceedings of the GST Act. However, the authority determined that the first two questions had already been addressed in a previous ruling, rendering them inadmissible for a fresh application. The rejection of the application was based on the grounds that the questions had been previously decided and that the third question did not fall within the scope of issues eligible for an Advance ruling under the GST Act.Conclusion:The Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal, rejected the application based on the previous rulings addressing the first two questions and the ineligibility of the third question for an Advance ruling under the GST Act. The applicant was informed that a copy of the order would be sent to them and the concerned revenue officer for reference.