2021 (12) TMI 885 - AAR - GST

Advance Ruling Application Denied Due to Inadmissible Questions

The application for advance ruling was not admitted under Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, read with Section 95(a) of the Act, as the questions ... Scope of Advance Ruling - Completion of various compliance actions would apply to the time limit provided for the export of goods under notification no. 41/2017 - Integrated tax (rate) Dated October 23, 2017 - relaxations provided vide the notification of 35/2020-Central Tax Dated April 3, 2020 - delay of one day over and above the 90 days specified - benefit of concessional rate of 0.1% IGST - HELD THAT:- The applicant is of the view that there is no violation of Notification No. 41/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) and the goods have been exported within the extended time limit specified in the Notification No. 41/2017 - Integrated tax (rate) Dated October 23, 2017, read with Notification No. 35/2020 - Central tax dated April 3, 2020. Accordingly, the 0.1% CGST charged by them is correct and requires no further action. The applicant had made supply of goods vide Invoice No. 2019100603, 2019100601, 2019100605 all dated 11.03.2020, e -way bills raised and the goods had been dispatched to the recipient. Further, the applicant vide their letter dated 31.05.2021, has submitted the Proof of documents on the supply made by them vide Notification No. 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 through mail to the Customs Jurisdictional Officer, in respect of the above invoices for which the ruling is sought before us. The applicant has contended that the question is admissible for ruling as the present application is in relation to the applicants’ transaction with the customer which is an ongoing transaction wherein the applicant supplies goods to customer as per Notification 41/2017. In the case at hand, it is found that the question raised is in relation to the supply which had been made by the applicant and the proof of documents of such supply furnished before the concerned authorities for further action as required under Notification No. 41/2017-I.T.(Rate) dated 23.10.2017. The necessary documents have been furnished vide their letter dated 31.05.2021 and the application seeking the ruling is made on 09.07.2021 - the question raised by the applicant as to whether the benefit of the concessional rate of 0.1% IGST, would still be available to them is not admissible before this authority. Applicability of relaxation provided under Notification No. 35/2020 C.T. - time-limit provided for the export of goods under Notification No. 41/2017 -I.T(Rate) - HELD THAT:- The questions admissible should pertain to the supply being undertaken’ or ‘proposed to be undertaken’ by such applicant only. In the facts presented, it is noticed that supply has been undertaken by the Merchant Exporter .and not by the applicant as stated in their submissions. Hence, the applicant cannot seek the ruling for the supply undertaken by the Merchant Exporter and therefore the question which seeks ruling on the applicability of relaxation in the time-limit for export is not admissible. The Application for Advance Ruling is not admitted, under sub section (2) of section 98 of the CGST /TNGST Act, 2017 read with Section 95(a) of the Act. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated April 3, 2020, to the time limit for the export of goods under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated October 23, 2017.2. Eligibility for the concessional rate of 0.1% IGST despite a one-day delay in exporting goods beyond the 90-day period specified under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate).Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax:The applicant sought clarification on whether the relaxations provided by Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax, which extended various compliance deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic, would apply to the time limit for exporting goods under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate). The applicant argued that the extension granted by Notification No. 35/2020 should cover the delay in exporting goods caused by the pandemic, thus extending the deadline to August 31, 2020. They cited the broad applicability of Notification No. 35/2020, which extended deadlines for various compliance actions except for specific exclusions, none of which included the provisions of Notification No. 41/2017.2. Eligibility for Concessional IGST Rate:The applicant contended that despite the one-day delay in exporting goods, they should still be eligible for the concessional IGST rate of 0.1% as per Notification No. 41/2017. They argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown, and that Notification No. 35/2020 extended the compliance deadline, thus covering the delay. The applicant referenced various legal provisions and case laws to support their claim that the relaxation in deadlines should apply to their situation, ensuring compliance with the extended deadline.Authority's Observations and Ruling:The authority observed that the applicant's questions pertained to a supply already undertaken and not a proposed or ongoing supply. The authority noted that the applicant had already furnished proof of export documents to the concerned authorities, and the issue was pending verification. As per Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, the authority cannot admit applications where the question is already pending or decided in any proceedings.Regarding the first question, the authority held that the applicant could not seek a ruling on the applicability of relaxation in the time limit for export as the supply was undertaken by the merchant exporter, not the applicant. Therefore, the question was not admissible.For the second question, the authority held that since the issue was pending verification by the concerned authorities, it was not admissible for advance ruling as per the proviso to Section 98(2).Final Ruling:The application for advance ruling was not admitted under Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, read with Section 95(a) of the Act, due to the reasons mentioned above.