TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>State GST AAR rejects advance ruling on import classification; directs applicant to seek Customs AAR for IGST/duty issues</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. Sundaram Industries Private Limited</h3> In Re: M/s. Sundaram Industries Private Limited - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an Advance Ruling under the CGST/TNGST Acts is admissible where the applicant seeks classification (HSN) of imported inputs used in its manufacturing process. 2. Whether the Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under the State GST Act has jurisdiction to determine tariff classification relevant to imports and assessment of Customs duties including IGST on import. 3. Whether the existence of a contemporaneous Customs Authority for Advance Ruling decision on the same imported items affects admissibility before the GST Advance Ruling Authority. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Admissibility of Advance Ruling for classification of imported inputs Legal framework: Advance Ruling is defined under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act as a decision provided by the Authority on matters specified in Section 97(2), in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Clause (a) of Section 97(2) includes 'Classification of any goods or services or both.' Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions are cited or relied upon in the text; therefore no precedent was followed, distinguished, or overruled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority construed the statutory definition to require that classification questions entertained under the GST advance ruling scheme must relate to outward supplies of the applicant (i.e., classification in relation to supplies being undertaken or proposed). The applicant's query, as clarified at hearing, was confined to classification of imported inputs (inward supplies). The Authority reasoned that classification of imported goods for purposes of import duty and import IGST pertains to Customs assessment at importation rather than to GST treatment of outward supplies; hence it falls outside the scope of 'in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant' as envisaged by Section 95(a). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The statutory scope of 'advance ruling' under Section 95(a) is limited to matters relating to the applicant's outward supplies; classification of imported inputs (inward supplies assessed by Customs) is outside that scope and therefore not admissible before the GST Advance Ruling Authority. Obiter - Observations on procedural aspects of Bill of Entry classification and practical remarks about forum suitability are incidental to the central holding. Conclusion: The application seeking HSN classification of imported inputs is not admissible to the GST Advance Ruling Authority because the question falls outside the statutory scope of 'advance ruling' under Section 95(a) as it does not relate to outward supplies of the applicant. Issue 2 - Jurisdictional boundary between GST Advance Ruling Authority and Customs Authority for Advance Ruling Legal framework: Assessment of Customs duties and import IGST vests with the Customs Department; the statutory scheme provides for Advance Ruling Authorities under respective laws whose competence is defined by those laws. Precedent Treatment: No precedents cited; the Authority applied statutory allocation of functions between Customs and GST fora. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority explained that classification for imported goods is determined at import through the Bill of Entry and is subject to Customs assessment. If import classification is disputed, the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling is the appropriate forum to decide tariff classification on imported goods. The GST Advance Ruling Authority is empowered to answer queries relating to GST and only insofar as they concern outward supplies by the applicant. Consequently, jurisdiction to rule on import classification vests with the Customs Advance Ruling body, not the State GST Advance Ruling Authority. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Jurisdiction over classification of imported goods (for import duty and import IGST) rests with Customs; the GST Advance Ruling Authority lacks competence to adjudicate such inward-supply import classification issues. Obiter - Practical guidance that the Bill of Entry generally contains the classification and that a contrary position should be pursued before Customs. Conclusion: The proper forum for tariff classification of imported inputs is the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling; the GST Advance Ruling Authority does not have jurisdiction to admit or decide such queries. Issue 3 - Effect of an existing Customs Advance Ruling on admissibility before the GST Authority Legal framework: Section 103(1)-(2) and Section 104 are noted regarding binding nature of advance rulings and voidability on account of fraud or misrepresentation; but admissibility considerations depend on scope under Section 95(a) and Section 97(2). Precedent Treatment: None cited in the judgment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority reviewed the Customs Advance Ruling produced by the applicant and found that the Customs ruling provided tariff classification for all imported components/parts at issue. The applicant's AR confirmed that the Customs ruling settled the classification queries. Given that the GST Authority lacks jurisdiction over import classification (Issue 2) and the Customs Authority has already ruled on the matter, there is no residual live question appropriate for GST advance ruling admission. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A prior Customs Advance Ruling resolving classification of imported components eliminates any live controversy appropriate for the GST Advance Ruling Authority, reinforcing inadmissibility. Obiter - The fact-specific observation that a ruling by the Customs Authority supplied to this Authority settled the applicant's query is incidental but supports the jurisdictional conclusion. Conclusion: The existence and content of the Customs Authority's ruling, which addresses tariff classification of the imported inputs, confirm that the GST Advance Ruling application is not admissible; the issue is properly and finally addressed by the Customs forum. Additional Procedural and Binding Observations (Incidental) Legal framework: Sections 100, 103 and 104 are noted concerning appeals against advance rulings, binding nature, and voidability for fraud or suppression of material facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority reminded that a GST Advance Ruling is binding only on the applicant and the concerned/jurisdictional officers and remains binding unless supporting law, facts or circumstances change; a ruling obtained by fraud or suppression is void ab initio. These observations frame the consequences of admissibility and enforceability but do not alter the jurisdictional holding. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - Procedural statements about appeal timelines and binding effect are descriptive of statutory regime and incidental to the main jurisdictional ruling. Conclusion: Statutory provisions on binding effect, appeal period, and voidability apply where an advance ruling is pronounced and admitted; they do not expand the Authority's jurisdiction to admit matters outside Section 95(a). Final Disposition The application for advance ruling is not admitted because the question raised-classification of imported inputs-falls outside the scope of 'advance ruling' under Section 95(a) of the CGST/TNGST Acts and is a matter for the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling; moreover, a Customs Advance Ruling on the same items has already been produced and settles the classification issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
