Input tax credit on purchaser's invoices: advance ruling can't bind buyer without hearing; ruling set aside, remanded.

The dominant issue was whether an advance ruling affecting input tax credit could bind a purchaser who was not heard, where the ruling was rendered on invoices raised by the purchaser and the supplier did not appeal. The HC held that the purchaser was an "aggrieved person" and could not be prejudiced by the supplier's inaction; principles of natural justice required notice and an opportunity of hearing to the purchaser since the ruling was based on its invoices. The HC further held that relegating the purchaser to the appellate authority was ineffective because the factual materials it sought to rely on were not part of the original record, requiring reconsideration by the original authority. The advance ruling was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the purchaser.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the learned Single Bench declining interim relief.
2. Validity of the order of the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling regarding input tax credit.
3. Applicability of CGST and WBGST Act, 2017.
4. Rights of the appellants in the advance ruling process.
5. Need for re-examination of the matter by the authority.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Single Bench declining interim relief. The appellants contended that non-payment of GST amount violated constitutional provisions and Acts. The order in question was passed by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, holding the 4th respondent not entitled to input tax credit claimed from the appellants' invoices. The appellants argued that they were not heard by the authority, and the facts presented were incomplete, necessitating their approach to the writ Court.

2. The Court analyzed the provisions of Chapter XVII of the CGST Act concerning advance rulings. It noted that the appellants being registered dealers could qualify as applicants under the Act. However, the applicant before the authority was the 4th respondent. The Court emphasized that the appellants, as aggrieved parties, should have been given notice and heard by the authority, especially since the invoices in question were raised by them. The failure of the 4th respondent to appeal the ruling could not prejudice the rights of the appellants.

3. The Court held that the appellants should not be left remediless due to the authority's decision without hearing them. It was deemed ineffective to direct the appellants to appeal to the appellate authority as the factual details they sought to present were not part of the original records. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration, directing them to issue notices, hear all parties, allow submissions, and pass fresh orders based on merits and law compliance.

4. The Court emphasized expeditious compliance with its directions, preferably within eight weeks, without delving into the merits of the case, leaving it to the authority to make a reasoned decision based on the facts presented. Finally, no costs were awarded, and the parties were to receive certified copies of the order promptly upon fulfilling legal formalities.

---