Authority lacks jurisdiction to rule on applicant's questions under specific sections of CGST Act due to activities beyond scope.

The authority ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to issue a ruling on the questions raised by the applicant as the matters fall outside the scope specified under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act and involve activities proposed by a registered person beyond its jurisdiction. The applicant's concerns stemmed from objections raised by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, further limiting the authority's jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of Debit Note under Section 34(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Issuance of Debit Note by Bhavani Branch and its declaration in returns.
3. Entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Head Office on Debit Notes raised by Bhavani Branch.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of Debit Note under Section 34(3) of the CGST Act, 2017:
The applicant queried whether a Debit Note can be raised under Section 34(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for differences in tax rates charged on tax invoices due to objections raised by the proper officer, even if the taxable person does not accept these objections. The applicant sought to avoid litigation and buy peace by adjusting the tax liability as per Section 34(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The authority examined Section 34, which governs the issuance of credit and debit notes. Section 34(3) specifically allows for the issuance of debit notes when the tax charged in the tax invoice is found to be less than the tax payable. However, the authority noted that the questions raised were not within the matters specified under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which outlines the scope of advance rulings.

2. Issuance of Debit Note by Bhavani Branch and its Declaration in Returns:
The applicant also inquired whether the Bhavani Branch (GSTN 33AABFT8331N1ZY) could raise a Debit Note and declare its details in the monthly returns for the financial year 2020-21, addressing objections regarding lower tax rates charged on branch transfers and supplies. The authority observed that the Bhavani Branch, being a distinct entity under Section 25(4) of the CGST Act, falls outside its jurisdiction. Since the Bhavani Branch is registered in Tamil Nadu, the question pertains to an activity proposed by a registered person not within the jurisdiction of the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling.

3. Entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Head Office on Debit Notes raised by Bhavani Branch:
The applicant questioned whether the Head Office (GSTN 32AABFT8331N1Z0) could avail ITC on Debit Notes raised by the Bhavani Branch, based on objections regarding lower tax rates. This query is contingent on the resolution of the second issue. The authority reiterated that since the Bhavani Branch is outside its jurisdiction, it cannot issue a ruling on this matter.

Conclusion:
The authority concluded that the questions raised do not pertain to any matter specified under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act and involve activities proposed by a registered person outside its jurisdiction. Additionally, the applicant's query arose from objections raised by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, which further restricts the authority's jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the authority ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to issue a ruling on the questions raised by the applicant.

---