TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) Section 97 for advance ruling. (b) On the concerned officer or the Jurisdictional Officer in respect of the applicant. 3. In terms of Section 103(2) of the Act, this Advance Ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the original advance ruling have changed. 4. Advance Ruling obtained by the applicant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, shall render such ruling to be void ab initio in accordance with Section 104 of the Act. 5. The provisions of both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act (herein referred to as the Act) are the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t their outstanding balance be adjusted to reflect the full ITC credit of Rs. 18,53,429.21 (SGST Rs. 9,26,714.60 and CGST Rs. 9,26,714.60). The applicant also stated that in order to address this situation, they had requested M/s. PPG Asian Paints to modify their ITC credit in the outstanding amount in their books of accounts but that M/s. PPG Asian Paints declined their request and dropped it. Applicant's Interpretation of Law: 5. In favour of their contention, the applicant has cited the rulings of M/s. Paragon Polymer Products Pvt Ltd and M/s. Senco Gold Ltd issued by the Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal, wherein it has been held that claiming credit of input tax by the assessee cannot be denied under the second proviso to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7.2 The AR further explained that the purchase bills in respect of the procurements from M/s. PPG Asian Paints Ltd., were erroneously shown as sale bills by the applicant in the GSTR-1 and payment of outward taxes have also been made inadvertently towards the same during the periods from 2017-18 to 2022-23. Accordingly, the AR requested that to address this situation, a ruling may be passed by the advance ruling authority, directing the supplier i.e., M/s. PPG Asian Paints Ltd., to transmit the outstanding balance of ITC of Rs. 18,53,429/- to the applicant's account. 7.3 The Members explained that an advance ruling could be passed only in respect of an applicant who has filed the application and not in respect of any other person. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term. 8.4 We find that the second query raised by the applicant as to whether 'ITC erroneously transferred will be eligible for refund', clearly does not fall under any of the clauses from (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) as referred above, and as such the said query goes out of the equation, as the same is not liable to be admitted. 8.5 As regards the first query, viz., "ITC credit will be adjusted in the books of accounts - outstanding payable amount?, we find that the same does not clearly convey the facts, and going by the 'Statement of Rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the application filed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant's request to issue a directive to M/s. PPG Asian Paints Ltd., who is the supplier in the instant case, is outside the scope of this Authority for Advance Ruling. This is due to the fact that as per Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, which defines "advance ruling", it gets conveyed that a ruling is to be provided in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant, and not for any other person/entity. 8.7 Further, we find that though the query contains the term 'ITC Credit', the subject matter does not relate to Input Tax Credit (ITC) or the admissibility of the same, by any means whats....