Advance ruling maintainability turns on statutory scope and dual fee payment; defective GST application rejected.

An advance ruling application on the value to be shown in the e-way bill for job-work activity was held to fall outside the questions covered by the advance ruling provisions. The application was also defective because the prescribed fee had to be paid under both the Central and State GST enactments, but payment was made only under the State enactment. These defects affected maintainability and justified rejection under section 98(2). The application was accordingly rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for advance ruling was liable to be rejected for not relating to any question covered under the advance ruling provisions and for non-payment of the prescribed fee under both enactments.

Analysis: The application sought a ruling on the value to be shown in the e-way bill for job-work activity. The matter was found to fall outside the questions specified for advance ruling under section 97(2). The application was also defective because the prescribed fee was required to be paid under both the Central and State GST enactments, while fee was paid only under the State enactment. These defects went to the maintainability of the application and attracted rejection under section 98(2).

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---