9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 1051 - AAAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - Classification of goods - proposed product to be manufactured by the Appellant would be considered/categorized as Glass-fiber Reinforced Gypsum or not - applicability of Sl. No.92 of the Notification No.1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.6.2017 - whether the Advance Ruling application filed by the Appellant is maintainable in terms of Section 95(a) read with Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 or not? HELD THAT - As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 (a) 'advance ruling' means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97 or sub-section (1) of Section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. The section, therefore, envisages that an Advance Ruling can be asked for a transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. Any transaction of supply of goods or services or both, proposed to be undertaken, can be a subject of an application of Advance Ruling. However, the meaning of the expression proposed to be undertaken' cannot be expanded to include manufacturing, proposed to be undertaken. It is one of the fundamental rules of interpretation that if the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more is necessary than to expound those in their natural and ordinary sense as the words themselves in such a case best declare the intention of the legislature. There is no need for an artificial expansion of the expression as a result of which the interpretation may well go beyond the intention of the Legislature. The application is therefore barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 - there is nothing in the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, which prevents the Appellant from approaching the Advance Ruling Authority with a fresh application along with the sample/reports of the products and seek ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Advance Ruling application under Section 95(a) read with Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Classification of the proposed product under GST and eligibility for concessional rate of duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application: The core issue addressed by the Appellate Authority is whether the Advance Ruling application filed by the Appellant is maintainable under Section 95(a) read with Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellant contended that the application pertains to the "applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of the Act" for a product proposed to be manufactured, which falls under Section 97(2)(b). The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (MAAR) rejected the application, stating that the proposed product was not in existence and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria for an advance ruling under Section 95(a). The Appellant argued that the MAAR was aware that the product was proposed to be manufactured and had initially admitted the application. The Appellant also claimed that the MAAR did not request a sample of the product, thereby violating the principle of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard. The Appellate Authority upheld the MAAR's decision, agreeing that the term "proposed to be undertaken" in Section 95(a) does not extend to manufacturing proposed to be undertaken. The Authority emphasized that the words of the statute should be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense, and there is no need for artificial expansion. Therefore, the application was deemed barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Classification of the Proposed Product and Eligibility for Concessional Rate: The Appellant sought to classify a new category of product, "Glass Reinforced Gypsum Board" (GRG), under the concessional GST rate of 12% as per Sl. No. 92 of Schedule II to Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate). The Appellant argued that the proposed product contains approximately 94% gypsum, 5% paper, and less than 1% glass fiber, which should qualify it as GRG. They provided detailed test reports and comparative studies showing the reinforcement properties of the product with the addition of glass fiber. The MAAR rejected the application on the grounds that the product was not in existence and thus could not be classified. The Appellant contended that the MAAR could have decided based on the provided composition and test reports of similar products. The Appellant also cited various rulings from other states where advance rulings were provided for products proposed to be manufactured. The Appellate Authority did not delve into the merits of the classification question, as it focused solely on the maintainability issue. However, it noted that nothing in the CGST Act prevents the Appellant from filing a fresh application with the necessary samples/reports. The Appellate Authority suggested that the Appellant could approach the MAAR again with a fresh application and samples, and the MAAR should then decide the issue on merits as per the law. Conclusion: The Appellate Authority upheld the MAAR's decision that the application was barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017. It also acknowledged the Appellant's contention regarding the denial of a fair hearing due to the absence of a sample request. The Appellant was advised to file a fresh application with samples for a proper ruling on the merits of the classification issue.
|
