Advance Ruling Application Dismissed for Incomplete FORM GST ARA-01, Highlighting Critical Procedural Compliance Requirements

The WB Authority for Advance Ruling rejected an application for advance ruling due to the applicant's failure to specify questions in FORM GST ARA-01 as required by the GST Act. Despite opportunity to clarify during personal hearing, the applicant did not address the procedural deficiency, resulting in automatic application dismissal under Section 97(2) and Section 100(1) of the GST Act.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for advance ruling under the GST Act lacking specified questions.

The judgment by the Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal clarifies the procedure for appealing against a ruling under the GST Act. The aggrieved party must appeal before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling within thirty days from the date of communication of the ruling, as per Section 100(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal must adhere to the provisions of Section 100(3) of the GST Act and the relevant regulations.

The judgment emphasizes the similarity between the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act), except for certain provisions. It states that unless specified, a reference to the CGST Act includes the corresponding provisions in the WBGST Act. The expression 'GST Act' is used interchangeably for both acts in the context of the proceedings.

Regarding the definition of an advance ruling under the GST Act, it is explained that it pertains to a decision provided by the authority on matters specified in Section 97(2) or Section 100(1) of the GST Act related to the supply of goods or services. An application for an advance ruling must be made using FORM GST ARA-01 on the common portal.

In the specific case discussed in the judgment, the applicant failed to raise any questions in the application for advance ruling, as required by the prescribed form. Even the annexure submitted with the application did not contain any questions seeking an advance ruling. The document provided by the applicant was identified as a statement on auditors' comments on the financial report for the year 2021-2022, lacking the necessary queries for an advance ruling.

During the personal hearing, the absence of specified questions in the application was pointed out to the applicant's authorized representative, who did not contest this fact. Consequently, the Authority concluded that there was no basis to admit the application and therefore rejected it.

---