Advance ruling application fee compliance under both GST enactments determines maintainability, leading to rejection at threshold.

An advance ruling application under the CGST Act and Karnataka GST Act was not maintainable because the prescribed fee had not been paid under both enactments; payment under only one enactment was insufficient for a valid filing. The applicant also sought withdrawal on the ground that clarification was no longer required, but the authority held that the defect went to maintainability at the threshold, so the application could not be examined on merits and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application was maintainable when the prescribed fee was not paid under both the Central and State GST enactments and the applicant sought withdrawal of the application.

Analysis: The application was filed under the advance ruling provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The authority noted that the prescribed fee under both enactments was required for a valid application, while the applicant had discharged the fee only under the Karnataka enactment. The applicant also requested that the application be quashed, stating that clarification was no longer required. On these facts, the application failed at the threshold and could not be entertained on merits.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---