2025 (5) TMI 1102 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Restriction of refund on outward supply of products in which notified product is used as inward supply - N/N. 5/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.2017 read with N/N. 9/2022-CT (R) dated 13.7.2022 - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of the sections 95 (a) and (c) 97 of the CGST Act 2017 depicts that advance ruling means a decision by the AAR Authority for Advance Ruling 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. The questions on which the ruling is sought is however restricted to the 7 seven issues listed in section 97 (2) ibid. It is found that vide this application the applicant has sought clarification regarding availability of refund ie whether the refund is restricted on outward supply of such products or also of products in which a notified product is used as an inward supply - Refund not being one amongst the seven issues listed in section 97 (2) ibid we are left with no option but to reject the application. The aforementioned application filed by M/s. Saket International is rejected in terms of section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 read with sections 95(a) (c) and 97 of the CGST Act 2017.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) was whether, under notification No. 5/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.2017 read with notification No. 9/2022-CT (R) dated 13.7.2022, the refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) is restricted only on outward supply of products or also extends to products in which a notified product (such as coal) is used as an inward supply. Essentially, the applicant sought clarification on the scope of refund restrictions concerning outward supplies involving inputs taxed at a higher rate than the output supplies.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Whether the advance ruling authority can entertain an application seeking clarification on the availability of refund of unutilized ITC under the specified notifications, particularly if refund restrictions apply to outward supplies involving notified inward supplies.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Authority primarily examined the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, specifically sections 95, 97, and 98, which govern the scope and procedure for obtaining an advance ruling. Section 95 defines "advance ruling" and "applicant"; Section 97 enumerates the specific questions on which an advance ruling can be sought; Section 98 deals with the disposal of applications for advance ruling. The notifications referenced (No. 5/2017-CT (R) and No. 9/2022-CT (R)) impose restrictions on refund of unutilized ITC where the input tax rate exceeds the output tax rate for certain notified goods, such as coal.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Authority emphasized that the scope of advance ruling applications is limited to the seven issues specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which include classification of goods or services, applicability of notifications, determination of time and value of supply, admissibility of input tax credit, liability to pay tax, requirement of registration, and whether certain acts constitute supply. Refund of unutilized ITC does not fall within these enumerated categories.

The applicant's question pertained to the availability of refund on outward supplies involving inputs taxed at a higher rate, which is essentially a question on refund entitlement. Since refund is not among the categories specified in Section 97(2), the Authority concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application on this issue.

Key Evidence and Findings: The applicant submitted documents including refund ARN receipts and refund application forms (RFD-01, RFD-02, RFD-05, and RFD-06) to substantiate their plea. However, the Authority found that these evidences did not alter the fundamental legal limitation on the scope of advance rulings.

Application of Law to Facts: The Authority applied the statutory provisions strictly, noting that the advance ruling mechanism is designed to provide clarity on specific tax questions listed in Section 97(2). Since the question on refund was outside this scope, the application was not maintainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant argued for a broader interpretation of the advance ruling provisions to include refund-related questions. The Authority rejected this, adhering to the explicit statutory language limiting the scope of advance rulings. No alternative legal basis was found to extend the jurisdiction to refund matters.

Conclusions: The Authority concluded that refund-related questions are not permissible subjects for advance ruling under the CGST Act. Consequently, the application was rejected at the threshold stage for lack of jurisdiction.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Authority held: "Refund, not being one amongst the seven issues listed in section 97 (2), ibid, we are left with no option but to reject the application."

This establishes the core principle that the scope of advance ruling under the CGST Act is confined to the matters enumerated in Section 97(2), and questions relating to refund of unutilized ITC do not fall within this ambit.

Final determination: The application seeking advance ruling on the availability of refund under the specified notifications was rejected in terms of Section 98(2) read with Sections 95(a), (c) and 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the issue raised was not maintainable before the Authority for Advance Ruling.

← Previous Next →