Advance ruling maintainability limited to section 97(2) issues; work-site registration questions were rejected outside jurisdiction.

An advance ruling application is maintainable only on the questions specifically listed in section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Questions concerning registration of work sites, amendment of registration, and movement of goods to and within work sites fell outside that statutory list, and the AAR therefore lacked jurisdiction to examine them. As the applicant was already registered, the same limitation applied under the KGST Act, 2017. The application was consequently rejected as not maintainable under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding KGST provisions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application was maintainable when the questions raised were not covered by the matters specified in section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis: The application was examined at the threshold for maintainability. The questions raised related to registration of work sites, proof for amendment of registration, and movement of goods to and within work sites. These questions did not fall within the enumerated subjects on which an advance ruling can be sought under section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. As the applicant was already registered, the authority had no jurisdiction to decide questions outside that statutory list. The same position applied to the corresponding provisions of the KGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding KGST provisions.

---