2018 (11) TMI 606 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - scope of section Section 97 (2) (d) of CGST Act, 2017 - CENVAT credit of Excise duty , CVD and SAD paid on Capital Goods purchased prior to July 1st July 2017, credit not claimed earlier - VAT paid on Capital Goods purchased prior to July 1st 201 7 on which Input Tax Credit has not been claimed earlier - Held that - This authority is of the opinion the questions sought by the applicant in their application do not fall under the ambit of Section 97(2)(d) of CGST Act, 2017. Ruling - The subject application filed by the applicant firm i.e M/s. NSL Mining Resources India Private Limited 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 APGST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Excise duty, CVD, and SAD paid on Capital Goods for claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the CGST Act.
2. Admissibility of VAT paid on Capital Goods for claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of Excise duty, CVD, and SAD paid on Capital Goods:
The applicant, engaged in upgrading iron ore, sought advance ruling on the admissibility of claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the CGST Act for Excise duty, CVD, and SAD paid on Capital Goods purchased before July 1, 2017. The jurisdictional officer confirmed no pending proceedings. The applicant argued that transitional credit is akin to Input Tax Credit and should be allowed under Section 97(2)(d) of the CGST Act. However, the authority opined that transitional relief, not falling under Input Tax Credit as defined in the Act, is beyond the scope of Section 97(2)(d). Consequently, the application was deemed beyond the authority's jurisdiction under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.

Issue 2: Admissibility of VAT paid on Capital Goods:
The applicant also sought clarification on claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act for VAT paid on Capital Goods purchased pre-July 2017. The applicant contended that transition credits should be considered as Input Tax Credit, supported by a ruling from the State of Uttarakhand. However, the authority, after considering the statutory provisions and submissions, concluded that the transitional relief falls outside the definition of Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act. Therefore, the application was declared inadmissible under Section 98(2) of the APGST Act.

In conclusion, the authority determined that the questions raised by the applicant did not fall within the ambit of Section 97(2)(d) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the application by the applicant firm was deemed beyond the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 98(2) of both the CGST Act and the APGST Act. The order passed stated that the application was "not admitted" due to being outside the scope of the relevant provisions.