Appeals by Central and State GST authorities against advance rulings held maintainable under Section 101

AAAR Rajasthan held that appeals filed by Central GST and State GST authorities against advance ruling were maintainable despite respondent's preliminary objections. The authority rejected contentions regarding time limitation for passing orders under Section 101 CGST Act, holding the 90-day limit is directory, not mandatory. Appeals filed within 30 days were not time-barred. Manual filing was proper under Rule 107A. Both Central and State GST officers have authority to appeal advance rulings. State GST authority's changed stance after higher authority consideration was permissible, not barred by estoppel. All preliminary objections were rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the value of diesel provided free of cost by the customer is includable in the value of the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service for GST purposes.
2. Timeliness and maintainability of the appeals filed by the appellants.
3. Whether the appeals were filed following the prescribed procedure.
4. Authority of the Principal Commissioner, CGST Jodhpur to file an appeal.
5. Revisiting the stance taken before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Diesel Value in GTA Service:

The core issue revolves around whether the value of diesel provided free of cost by the customer should be included in the taxable value of the GTA service. The AAR ruled that the value of diesel provided free of cost by the service recipient is not includable in the value of the GTA service. The appellants argued that as per Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017, the transaction value should include any amount that the supplier is liable to pay, which has been incurred by the recipient. They contended that diesel is an essential component for providing GTA services, and its cost should be considered as additional consideration under Section 2(31) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellants also argued that the AAR misinterpreted the provisions regarding the liability to pay for inward supplies like diesel.

2. Timeliness and Maintainability of Appeals:

The respondent challenged the maintainability of the appeals, claiming they were time-barred. The appeals were filed on 12.08.2022 and 14.10.2022, while the AAR order was communicated on 23.06.2022 and 28.06.2022. The appellants argued that they received the order on 11.08.2022 and 15.09.2022, respectively, and sought condonation of delay. The authority examined the dates and concluded that the appeals were filed within the extended period allowed under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, thus rejecting the respondent's objection on this ground.

3. Procedure for Filing Appeals:

The respondent argued that the appeals were not filed on the common portal as required by Rule 106 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, the authority noted that Rule 107A allows for manual filing and processing, thus permitting the appeals to be filed in hard copy. The objection regarding the procedure was therefore rejected.

4. Authority to File Appeal:

The respondent contended that the Principal Commissioner, CGST Jodhpur, was not the proper authority to file the appeal. The authority clarified that the terms 'concerned officer' and 'jurisdictional officer' under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017, refer to different officers from the Central and State GST authorities, both of whom are entitled to file an appeal. Thus, the appeal by the Principal Commissioner was deemed valid.

5. Revisiting the Stance Taken Before AAR:

The respondent argued that the appellant could not revisit the stance taken before the AAR, invoking the principle of estoppel. However, the authority held that there is no estoppel against the State or statute. The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Suratgarh, clarified that the initial stance was taken without proper approval from higher authorities, and the appeal was filed after reconsideration. Therefore, the objection was rejected, and the appeal was considered maintainable.

Conclusion:

The authority concluded that the preliminary objections raised by the respondent were not sustainable. The appeals were deemed maintainable and were to be decided on merits. The respondent was requested to make submissions on the merits and appear for a personal hearing.

---