2020 (2) TMI 537 - AAAR - GST

Maintainability of application for rectification - error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT - The issue raised by the applicant by way of rectification application, has already been considered by this authority in the order itself - this authority has rightly decided the matter as per the facts and contention submitted on the record while passing of the impugned advance ruling order and there is no apparent mistake from the record to be rectified in the said order. Therefore, the present application is not found tenable under scope of rectification. Hence it is rejected.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for rectification of advance ruling order under Section 102 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. Rectification Application: The applicant, M/s. Security and Intelligence Services (India) Limited, filed an application for rectification of an advance ruling order issued under Section 98 of the CGST Act and MGST Act. The applicant argued that there was an error on the face of the record regarding the classification of Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT) as a "Government Authority." The applicant contended that VNIT, being conferred Deemed University status and declared an institute of National importance by an Act of Parliament, should be considered a "Governmental Authority." The rectification application was filed within the prescribed time.

2. Hearing and Findings: The matter was scheduled for a hearing, and Mr. Amit Rustogi, C.A., attended on behalf of the applicant. The Authority noted that the original ruling order, dated 24.05.2019, had already addressed the issue raised by the applicant in the rectification application. The original order had concluded that VNIT did not meet the criteria to be considered a "Governmental Authority" as per the relevant notification.

3. Decision on Rectification: The Authority determined that there was no apparent mistake in the original ruling order that warranted rectification. It was found that the original ruling was correctly decided based on the facts and contentions presented during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the rectification application was deemed not maintainable and was rejected under the scope of rectification as per Section 102 of the CGST Act and MGST Act.

4. Final Order: In the final order dated 17/01/2020, the Authority, after considering the facts on record and the provisions under the CGST Act and MGST Act, officially rejected the application for rectification, stating that it was non-maintainable. The decision reiterated the Authority's stance that there was no need for rectification based on the arguments and evidence presented during the original ruling process.

This detailed analysis outlines the sequence of events, arguments presented by the applicant, the Authority's findings, and the ultimate decision regarding the rectification application in the context of the advance ruling order issued under the relevant tax Acts.