TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) On the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom New Delhi to Jammu and Kashmir without entering the State of Tamil Nadu. In this scenario, how to handle E-way Bill? Scenario-2: One of their suppliers is located at Secunderabad (Telangana) and supplies materials directly to the applicant's customer at Hyderabad on behalf of the applicant. The supplier at Secunderabad issues tax invoice to the applicant in Chennai. But the supplier uses the concept of Bill to Ship to and while issuing tax invoice he charges CGST and SGST instead of IGST. But, as per Rule 11 of the Place of Supply of Goods/Services, the levy should be as IGST. If the Bill to and Ship to customer is the same State and the applicant company is of a different State, what is the provision for E-way bill. The appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ol of State Tax Authority. The concerned Authorities of the State and Centre were addressed to offer detailed remarks and also to provide pendency report on the questions raised by the applicant in their ARA application. Since no remarks were received from the State jurisdictional authorities as well as the Central jurisdictional authorities, it is construed that there are no pending proceedings against the applicant on the questions raised by them in their advance ruling application. PERSONAL HEARING 6.1 The applicant was given an opportunity to be heard in person on 17.02.2026 vide this office memorandum No. 50/2025, dated 10.02.2026. Mr. B.Abdul Kalam, Manager, M/s. Grayeye IT Systems Private Ltd., Chennai and Mr. K.Pradeep Narayan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions made by the applicant in the advance ruling application, and the submissions made during the personal hearing held on 17.02.2026. 7.2 The Applicant is engaged in OEM (original Equipment Manufacturers), supplies of system integration and Networking, IT hardware items. 7.3 In their application for advance ruling, the applicant has raised a question "E-way Bill generation - validity and applicability" which appears to be vague and not a definite one. But from the submissions dated 10.10.2025 made by the applicant, it is seen that they have query on three situations faced by them on which they want clarifications. It is also noted that all the three scenarios raised by the applicant involve procedures of e-way bill generation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd its validity and procedure to be adopted for movement of goods. 7.5 We would like to bring to the notice of the applicant, Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 which states: (2) The question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of,- (a) classification of any goods or services or both; (b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act; (c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both; (d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid; (e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both; (f) whether applicant is required to be registe....