Advance ruling jurisdiction limited to statutory GST questions; scheme-based incentive entitlement fell outside maintainability.

Advance ruling jurisdiction is confined to the specific questions listed in section 97(2) of the GST Act. An application seeking to determine whether tax paid under reverse charge mechanism counts as "State tax due and deposited" under a Rajasthan incentive scheme was outside that scope, because it raised a scheme-based entitlement question rather than a question on liability to pay tax on any identified supply. The application was therefore held not maintainable under the advance ruling provisions and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application seeking a ruling on whether tax paid under reverse charge mechanism qualifies as "State tax due and deposited" under the Rajasthan incentive scheme was maintainable under the advance ruling provisions.

Analysis: The question raised was framed with reference to an incentive scheme of the State Government, not to the determination of tax liability on any identified goods or services under the GST law. The advance ruling jurisdiction under section 97(2) of the GST Act is confined to the specified categories of questions. The Authority found that the applicant's request did not concern ascertainment of liability to pay tax on any particular supply, but instead involved a scheme-based entitlement issue of procedural nature outside the statutory scope of advance ruling. On that basis, the application was held not to satisfy the maintainability requirements of the advance ruling provisions.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable under section 97(2) of the GST Act and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling application is maintainable only when the question falls within the specific statutory heads enumerated in section 97(2); a scheme-linked entitlement issue not involving determination of tax liability on a particular supply lies outside that jurisdiction.

---