2024 (10) TMI 195 - AAR - GST

AAR rejects advance ruling application under section 97(2) GST Act for failing to demonstrate eligibility

The AAR West Bengal rejected an advance ruling application under GST Act provisions. The applicant filed Form GST ARA-01 selecting clause (b) of section ... Scope of Advance Ruling application - Interpretation of provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Classification of goods and services for tax purposes - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, questions raised by the applicant vide application made in FORM GST ARA-01 are found not to be covered under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act. The applicant has selected clause (b) of sub section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act in serial no 13 of the application. However, in course of hearing, the authorized representatives of the applicant have failed to refer any such notification in respect of which the option was selected. The applicant has not raised any questions which are found to be covered under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act. The applicant has been provided reasonable opportunity to counter the aforesaid observations - there are no reason to accept the instant application made by the applicant for pronouncement of ruling. The application is, therefore, rejected. Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Classification of goods and services for tax purposes.3. Advance ruling application under Section 97 of the GST Act.4. Rejection of the advance ruling application.Analysis:1. The judgment begins by clarifying that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act) have similar provisions unless specifically mentioned otherwise. The term 'GST Act' refers to both acts collectively. The applicant, engaged in producing bulk explosives, sought clarification on generating tax invoices for goods supplied to mines. The applicant argued that the supply qualifies as 'continuous supply of goods' under Section 2(32) of the GST Act. They proposed issuing tax invoices after final consumption at the mining site as per Section 31(4) of the CGST Act and WBGST Act.2. The applicant further sought permission to transport goods without issuing invoices initially, following Rule 55(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and WBGST Rules, 2017. They requested to issue tax invoices post-delivery/consumption at the mining site. The applicant's application for advance ruling was based on these questions related to the nature of supply and invoicing procedures for the goods supplied.3. The judgment highlighted the criteria for seeking an advance ruling under the GST Act, including classification of goods, applicability of notifications, determination of supply time and value, input tax credit admissibility, liability to pay tax, registration requirement, and identification of activities constituting supply. However, the questions raised by the applicant did not fall under any of these criteria specified in Section 97(2) of the GST Act.4. During the hearing, the applicant's representatives failed to provide references to notifications related to the selected clause in the application. As a result, the Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal, concluded that the applicant's questions did not align with the criteria for an advance ruling specified in the GST Act. The application was rejected based on the lack of relevant questions falling under the statutory provisions for seeking an advance ruling.This detailed analysis of the judgment emphasizes the interpretation of tax laws, classification of goods, the process of seeking an advance ruling, and the rejection of an application due to non-alignment with statutory criteria.