Advance Ruling Application Dismissed: Procedural Errors Invalidate GST Request Under Sections 98(2), 95(a), (c), and 103

The SC rejected the advance ruling application due to procedural non-compliance. The application was filed by a CA on behalf of an unregistered business entity, lacking the mandatory GST registration and required fee. The ruling emphasized strict adherence to CGST Act provisions, specifically sections 98(2), 95(a), (c), and 103, which mandate proper representation and fee submission for advance ruling requests.

---

---

Issues involved:
The application for advance ruling filed by a Chartered Accountant on behalf of a business entity not registered under GST raises questions regarding the application of GST exemption notification and the applicable GST rate.

Application of GST exemption notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.6.2017:
The applicant, a business providing hostel facilities and food services to students, sought clarification on the application of GST exemption notification. The Authority considered the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and the GGST Act to determine the scope of advance ruling and the binding nature of such rulings.

Applicability of GST rate:
The applicant also inquired about the applicability of the GST rate to their services. The Authority analyzed the submission made by the applicant and the legal framework governing advance rulings under the GST laws to arrive at a decision.

Discussion and findings:
The Authority reviewed the submissions made by the applicant and conducted a personal hearing to understand the facts and interpretations of the law. It was noted that the application was filed by the Chartered Accountant on behalf of the business entity, which was not the actual service provider. Additionally, the application lacked the requisite fee as mandated by the CGST Rules.

Ruling:
The Authority rejected the application as it was filed by the Chartered Accountant and not the actual business entity providing the services. Moreover, the application was submitted without the necessary fee, rendering it non-compliant with the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. The decision was based on sections 98(2), 95(a), (c), and 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, highlighting the importance of proper representation and compliance with fee requirements in advance ruling applications.

---