GST Rate Determination on Tailoring Kit Rejected as Applicant Failed to Establish Standing Under Section 95(a)

The AAR rejected GRIMCO's application seeking determination of GST rate on a tailoring kit (containing sewing machine, overlock machine, and PVC stool) as non-maintainable under Section 95(a) of CGST Act. GRIMCO failed to clarify whether it was seeking the ruling as a supplier or on behalf of its supplier despite being asked during the virtual hearing. The Authority concluded that GRIMCO did not establish proper standing to file the application, noting that an Advance Ruling is binding only on the applicant and concerned officers as per Section 103(1), making the application procedurally defective.

---

---

Issues:
1. Determination of GST rate on a kit consisting of sewing machine, overlock machine, and PVC moulded stool.
2. Clarification on whether the applicant, GRIMCO, is seeking the ruling on behalf of its supplier or as a supplier itself.
3. Analysis of the jurisdiction and binding nature of the Advance Ruling as per the CGST Act.

Issue 1: Determination of GST rate on the kit:
The case involves M/s. Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. (GRIMCO) procuring toolkits and supplying them to various D.I.C. offices for distribution to beneficiaries of Govt. of Gujarat schemes. GRIMCO floated an e-tender for purchasing tailoring kits, including a sewing machine, overlock machine, and PVC moulded stool, with different GST rates applicable to each component. The applicant sought clarification on the GST rate applicable to the entire kit.

Issue 2: Clarification on applicant's status:
During a virtual hearing, the applicant's representative, Shri Ankit Shah, was asked to clarify whether GRIMCO was seeking the ruling on behalf of its supplier or as a supplier itself. The Authority highlighted the need for a revised application to determine GRIMCO's role in the transaction, as it was not clear from the initial submission. However, the applicant did not provide the necessary clarification, leaving the status unresolved.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and binding nature of the Advance Ruling:
The Authority referred to Section 103(1) of the CGST Act, which states that an Advance Ruling is binding only on the applicant and the concerned officer/jurisdictional officer. Section 95(a) of the CGST Act defines Advance Ruling as a decision related to the supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed by the applicant. The Authority found that GRIMCO failed to establish its standing to file the application under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, leading to the conclusion that GRIMCO's supplier is not bound by the ruling. Consequently, the application was rejected as non-maintainable under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act.

In summary, the judgment addressed the determination of GST rates on a kit, sought clarification on the applicant's status, and analyzed the jurisdiction and binding nature of Advance Rulings under the CGST Act, ultimately rejecting the application due to the applicant's failure to establish its standing and clarify essential details during the proceedings.

---