Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (4) TMI 301 - AAR - GSTScope of Advance Ruling application - application of GST exemption notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.6.2017 - section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 read with sections 95(a) (c) and 103 of the CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of the sections 95(a) and (c) 97 and 103 of the CGST Act 2017 depicts that advance ruling means a decision by the AAR to an applicant on matters or on questions specified under 97(2) ibid in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant; that an applicant means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act; that such an applicant may make an application in the prescribed form with appropriate fee stating the question on which the said ruling is sought. This application is not filed by M/s. Khanepe Hungermall LLP but by the Chartered Accountant in his own name. Since the person who has applied M/s. Kalepsh Dineshbhai Patel is not the person who proposes to undertake the supply question of giving an advance ruling in the matter simply does not arise. Secondly the ruling even if given to the person who has filed the application will not be binding on M/s. Khanepe in terms of section 103 ibid. Thirdly it is also found that the application is not accompanied by the requisite fee in terms of section 97(1) ibid read with Rule 104 of the CGST Rules 2017. On being pointed out during the course of personal hearing the applicant had admitted that he has in fact filed the application in his name seeking advance ruling and that he is not the actual service provider. It was further admitted that the application was not accompanied by the requisite fee.
|