9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 98 - AAR - GSTScope of Advance Ruling application - Payment of GST/tax/cess in the wrong head - interest payable from the date of payment of the wrong head and to the payment of the right head - section 97 of CGST Act - applicability of section 77(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 to section 9 of the GST compensation cess Act, 2017 (Compensation to States) in terms of payment of tax in a wrong head - HELD THAT - The applicant sought Advance Ruling in an issue of applicability of interest for the intervening period in the context of payment done under one Head i.e., Head of Cess instead of the other i.e., under the Head of CGST with a time gap of eight months between the two payments, which is outside the purview of the Advance Ruling Authority as per Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The application is not admitted under Sec 98 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 77(2) of the CGST Act to the GST compensation cess Act. 2. Payment of interest for the intervening period between wrong and right tax heads. Analysis: 1. The applicant, a works contractor registered under GST, sought an advance ruling on the applicability of section 77(2) of the CGST Act to the GST compensation cess Act. The applicant had mistakenly paid tax under the wrong head (cess) on a certain date and then corrected it by paying under the correct head (CGST) after eight months. The question raised was whether interest is payable for the intervening period between the two payments. The Authority noted that the applicant's query did not fall under the purview of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which outlines the scope of advance rulings. As the issue pertained to the applicability of interest for the time gap between payments under different heads, it was deemed outside the Authority's jurisdiction for providing advance rulings. Consequently, the application was not admitted under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act and APGST Act. 2. During the personal hearing, the Authorized Representative reiterated the facts submitted in the application. The Authority discussed the case and clarified that the applicant's query regarding interest payment for the period between paying tax under the wrong head and the correct head did not align with the categories specified under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. The Authority emphasized that advance rulings are limited to specific matters such as classification of goods or services, applicability of notifications, determination of tax liability, and other related issues listed under Section 97(2). Since the applicant's query fell outside this scope, the application was not accepted for an advance ruling. The decision was based on the legal provisions governing advance rulings and the specific nature of the query raised by the applicant. In conclusion, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh, declined to admit the application seeking clarification on the payment of interest for the period between paying tax under different heads, as it did not fall within the scope of matters eligible for advance rulings under the CGST Act and APGST Act.
|
