Advance ruling jurisdiction is limited to statutory questions, and a pending investigation barred admission of the application.

Advance ruling jurisdiction is confined to the specific questions enumerated in the GST statute, and a request on continuation or reversal of unutilised compensation cess credit fell outside that exhaustive scope. Because proceedings on the same issue were already pending under the Act, the application was also barred from admission. The Authority further noted that investigation proceedings had been initiated and that the application involved misdeclared facts. On these grounds, the application was held not admissible and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application was maintainable and admissible when the question raised did not fall within the statutory scope of advance ruling and proceedings relating to the same issue were already pending.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of advance ruling permits rulings only on the specific questions enumerated in Section 97(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The question raised, concerning continuation or reversal of unutilised compensation cess credit, was found to lie outside that exhaustive list. The Authority also relied on the proviso to Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, under which an application cannot be admitted where the same question is already pending in proceedings under the Act. On the material placed before it, the Authority found that investigation proceedings had already been initiated and that the application involved misdeclared facts.

Conclusion: The application was not admissible and was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling application must be confined to the questions expressly authorised by Section 97(2), and it cannot be admitted where the same issue is already pending in proceedings under the Act.

---