Advance ruling applications must disclose essential facts and material particulars; vague and incomplete filings may be rejected.

An advance ruling application may be rejected under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 where it fails to disclose the essential facts and material particulars needed to examine the questions raised. Here, the application did not provide a proper factual foundation, including adequate details of the applicant's business activity, supplies or inputs, and the supporting material was not shown to be relevant. The application was also treated as vague and incomplete, and the Authority held that section 98(2) permitted rejection after examination and hearing. The application was therefore rightly rejected for want of necessary particulars.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application, lacking primary facts and relevant details about the applicant's business activity, supplies and inputs, was liable to be rejected under section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The application did not disclose the basic factual foundation necessary to examine the questions raised. It contained no adequate write-up of the relevant business activity or supply, and the accompanying material did not explain its relevance. The applicant's authorised representative also ed that the application lacked the requisite details. On that basis, the Authority found the application to be vague and incomplete, attracting the power under section 98(2) to reject the application after examination and hearing.

Conclusion: The application was rightly rejected under section 98(2) for vagueness and incompleteness.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling application that does not disclose the essential facts and material particulars necessary for adjudication may be rejected under section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

---