Advance ruling on e-way bill requirements rejected as outside Section 97(2) CGST Act, despite Rules 138 notifications

The Gujarat AAR dismissed the applicant's request for advance ruling on the requirement to generate e-way bills for intra-State sales to unregistered buyers. It held that matters relating to e-way bills, governed by Rules 138 and 138A-138F of the CGST Rules, fall outside the ambit of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which exhaustively enumerates issues on which advance rulings may be sought. The AAR rejected the applicant's contention that issuance of rules via notification brings them within Section 97(2)(b), noting that all CGST Rules are notified under Section 164. As e-way bill issues are beyond jurisdiction, the AAR declined to answer the questions.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether questions relating to requirement or generation of e-way bill fall within the permissible scope of advance ruling under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.

1.2 Whether the provisions regarding e-way bill, introduced through notifications and rules (including Rule 138 and related rules and state notifications), can be treated as questions on "applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act" under Section 97(2)(b) of the CGST Act so as to confer jurisdiction on the Authority.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Scope of advance ruling under Section 97(2) and questions on e-way bill

Legal framework

2.1 The Court referred to Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which exhaustively specifies the questions in respect of which an advance ruling may be sought, namely: (a) classification of goods or services; (b) applicability of a notification issued under the Act; (c) determination of time and value of supply; (d) admissibility of input tax credit; (e) determination of liability to pay tax; (f) whether the applicant is required to be registered; and (g) whether a particular activity amounts to "supply".

2.2 The Court noted that "matters related to e-way bill" are not enumerated in any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 97(2).

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Court observed that the applicant sought rulings on: (i) whether it is compulsory to generate e-way bill for movement of goods between own godowns within the same State by an unregistered person; and (ii) whether it is compulsory to generate e-way bill when an unregistered person sells goods from his godown to an unregistered person within the State.

2.4 Examining Section 97(2), the Court found no express entry permitting advance ruling on compliance requirements relating to e-way bill. Since e-way bill provisions are not covered by any of the specified subject-matters, questions confined to e-way bill requirements fall outside the statutory jurisdiction of the Authority.

2.5 The Court also relied on its earlier decision in "Re: Jitendra Equipment", where it had already taken the view that e-way bill does not find mention in Section 97(2)(a) to (g) and that, consequently, the Authority should refrain from answering questions relating to e-way bill.

Conclusions

2.6 Questions relating to requirement or generation of e-way bill do not fall within any of the categories specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.

2.7 The Authority lacks jurisdiction to answer questions solely pertaining to e-way bill compliance, and therefore refrains from answering both questions posed by the applicant.

Issue 2 - Whether e-way bill provisions fall under "applicability of a notification" in Section 97(2)(b)

Legal framework

2.8 The applicant relied on Notification No. 27/2017-CT dated 30.08.2017 (introducing e-way bill provisions, including Rules 138 and 138A-138F, made effective from 01.02.2018) and Notification No. 74/2017-CT dated 29.12.2017, as well as a State notification (Notification No. GSL/GST/Rule-138(14)/B.19 dated 19.09.2018) concerning e-way bill exemptions, to contend that their case falls under Section 97(2)(b) - "applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act".

Interpretation and reasoning

2.9 The Court rejected the contention that, merely because e-way bill rules were introduced by notification, any question about e-way bill automatically becomes a question on "applicability of a notification" under Section 97(2)(b).

2.10 The Court pointed out that all CGST Rules, 2017, have been introduced through notifications issued under Section 164 of the CGST Act (for example, initial rules via Notification No. 3/2017-CT dated 19.06.2017, and subsequent rules through further notifications). Accepting the applicant's argument would mean that any matter governed by any rule, and by extension most matters under the Act, could be brought within the ambit of advance ruling merely because the rule originated from a notification.

2.11 The Court held that such an expansive reading of Section 97(2)(b) would defeat the legislative intent of restricting advance ruling to the specific categories enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 97(2).

2.12 Regarding the State notification specifying cases where no e-way bill is to be generated, the Court held that once e-way bill matters are found to be outside the ambit of Section 97(2), any notification concerning applicability or non-applicability of e-way bill also cannot be brought within the scope of Section 97(2)(b).

Conclusions

2.13 The introduction or regulation of e-way bill provisions through notifications and rules does not, by itself, render questions on e-way bill as questions on "applicability of a notification" under Section 97(2)(b).

2.14 Notifications and rules relating to e-way bill do not confer jurisdiction on the Authority to entertain advance ruling applications on e-way bill requirements.

2.15 Consequently, the Authority declined to answer both questions regarding the compulsory generation of e-way bill for (i) intra-State movement between own godowns, and (ii) sales to unregistered persons within the State, and recorded them as "Not answered, for the reasons mentioned aforesaid."

---