9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 132 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - requisite fee has not been deposited by the applicant - section 97 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Section 97 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 provides that an applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling may make an application in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the advance ruling is sought. Similar provision is provided under section 97(1) of the HPGST Act, 2017. The prescribed fee as per provisions of Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 is ₹ 5000/- under CGST head. Rule 104 of HPGST Rules, 2017 also provides for a fee of ₹ 5000/- under SGST head. Since the Advance Ruling has been sought with regards to applicability of provisions of CGST Act and HPGST Act, therefore the prescribed fee would be ₹ 5000/- each under CGST SGST heads. Since the application in this case is not accompanied by requisite fee of ₹ 10,000/- therefore the same is rejected - This ruling however does not in any way affect the right of the applicant to file a fresh application for seeking ruling on the same points provided it satisfies the provisions of section 97(1) of the CGST/ HPGST Act, 2017. Application dismissed.
Issues:
Applicability of GST on "Mukhyamantri Khet Sanrakshan Yojna" under CGST and HPGST Acts, 2017. Analysis: The application was filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Sai Steel Co & Consultants regarding the applicability of GST on "Mukhyamantri Khet Sanrakshan Yojna." The applicant failed to deposit the requisite fee as per the provisions of Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and HPGST Rules, 2017, which is ?5000 each under CGST and SGST heads, totaling ?10,000. During the personal hearing, the applicant's representative requested time to set off the fees but failed to do so within the specified timeframe. The Authority is empowered under section 98(2) to admit or reject the application after examining it, the records, and hearing the applicant or their representative, along with the concerned officer or their representative. In this case, since the application was not accompanied by the required fee of ?10,000, it was rejected. However, the ruling clarifies that the rejection does not prevent the applicant from filing a fresh application on the same points if it complies with the provisions of section 97(1) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of complying with the prescribed fee requirements when seeking an advance ruling under the GST Acts. Failure to deposit the necessary fees led to the rejection of the application, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the statutory provisions to avoid such outcomes.
|
