Supply Timing for August Invoices with September Exports: GST Refund Application Rejected Under Section 98(2)

The AAR rejected an application for advance ruling regarding time of supply for invoices issued in August 2021 and exports in September 2021. The application was dismissed on two grounds: it was not filed in the prescribed FORM GST ARA-01 format initially, and more significantly, the issue had already been decided by the proper officer through a show cause notice (FORM GST RFD-08) related to the applicant's refund claim. Section 98(2) of the GST Act prohibits admission of applications where matters are already decided in proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for refund in FORM GST RFD-01 related to the period September, 2021.
2. Show cause notice issued in FORM GST RFD-08 regarding the time of supply for invoices issued in August, 2021.
3. Application for obtaining an advance ruling not in the prescribed format of FORM GST ARA-01.
4. Question raised regarding time of supply for invoices and export shipment in different months.
5. Admissibility of the application when the issue is already decided by the proper officer.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a refund application in FORM GST RFD-01 for September 2021. The proper officer issued a show cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08, stating that invoices were issued in August 2021, impacting the time of supply for the refund claim.

2. The application for an advance ruling was not in the correct format of FORM GST ARA-01 as required by rule 104 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Despite submitting a manual copy later, the initial non-compliance was noted.

3. A question was raised by the applicant regarding the time of supply concerning invoices and export shipments in different months. However, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act prohibits admitting applications where the issue is already pending or decided in any proceedings.

4. The authorized representative acknowledged during the hearing that the proper officer had already decided and disposed of the issue related to the application for refund. Consequently, the application was found liable for rejection as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act.

5. In conclusion, the application for an advance ruling was rejected due to the issue being previously decided by the proper officer, rendering it inadmissible for further consideration. The rejection was made in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act, highlighting the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the admissibility criteria for advance rulings.

---