2018 (11) TMI 1830 - AAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling - Whether the applicant can dispatch the commodity of Eucalyptus/Poplar wood at the time of supply through Delivery Challan, which is supplied by him and the tax invoice be issued later after the goods is delivered and measured by the purchaser? - HELD THAT - On examination of Section 97(2) vis- -vis the application of party we observe that the question raised by applicant on which Advance Ruling is being sought does not come under the ambit of the specification as provided by the Section 97(2) of the GST Act. The question on which Advance Ruling is sought is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority, as it is beyond the domain of sub-section (2) of Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 - the application is not admitted under sub-section (2) of Section 98 of CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of whether the applicant can dispatch Eucalyptus/Poplar wood at the time of supply through Delivery Challan and issue the tax invoice later after the goods are delivered and measured by the purchaser.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a registered assessee under GST, sought an advance ruling regarding the dispatch of Eucalyptus/Poplar wood through Delivery Challan and issuing the tax invoice post-delivery.
2. The applicant submitted that due to moisture content in the wood, there is a difference in weight from the place of loading to the destination, causing variations in the value of goods.
3. They highlighted the complexities faced in the GST regime, where multiple debit/credit notes are issued for each transaction due to weight differences, creating challenges in accounting and compliance.
4. Referring to CGST Rules, the applicant argued for dispatching goods through Delivery Challan and issuing the tax invoice after delivery, citing Rule 55(4) allowing for the issuance of tax invoice post-delivery.
5. The Authority noted the applicant's request and examined the issue raised in light of Section 97(2) of the GST Act, which specifies the questions for seeking an advance ruling.
6. Upon analysis, the Authority found that the question raised by the applicant did not fall within the specified categories under Section 97(2) of the GST Act, leading to the conclusion that the issue was beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority.
7. Consequently, the members unanimously ruled that the question raised was beyond the authority's scope as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017.
8. Therefore, the application was deemed "not admitted" under Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017, due to being outside the jurisdiction defined by the relevant legal provisions.