Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1104 - AAR - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - rejection of application in terms of the proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 on the grounds of it being vague and incomplete - HELD THAT - On going through the application it is constrained to state that the application is vague incomplete and without any primary details about their business activity viz the supply they are engaged in their inputs etc. On going through the certificate of analysis from Navyug Analytical Laboratory dated 22.7.2023 enclosed with the application in addition to the undated and unsigned letter mentioned above it is not forthcoming as to how the same is relevant. In-fact the application is not accompanied with any write-up giving relevant facts having a bearing on the question raised before us. Further even the authorized representative admitted during the course of personal hearing that the application lacks relevant details write up etc. The application rejected in terms of sub section (2) of Section 98.
The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR), Gujarat, considered an application filed by M/s. Royal Enterprise seeking classification and tax rate determination under GST for commodities including D M Water, Distil Water, and Conductive Water. The application was deficient, lacking essential details about the applicant's business activities, nature of supply, and inputs, and was accompanied only by an undated, unsigned letter and an arguably irrelevant certificate of analysis.During the personal hearing held on 24.04.2025, the applicant's authorized representative conceded that the application was vague and incomplete. The AAR referenced Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which empowers the authority to reject applications that are incomplete or vague after examination and hearing.Given the absence of requisite information and relevant factual write-up, the AAR held that the application failed to meet procedural requirements and accordingly ruled: "We reject the application in terms of sub section (2) of Section 98."
|