9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 201 - AAR - GSTWithdrawal of advance ruling application - clarification sought on dealer have paid required fee of ₹ 10,000/- towards IGST and CGST instead of SGST and CGST - in the reference 6th cited, M/s. Eclery Foods LLP, have given a mail, that the business has shut down and they don t need any ruling against their application. Hence the dealer has withdrawn the advance Ruling Application - HELD THAT - The application filed by M/s. M/s. Eclery Foods LLP, is infructuous and dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues:
1. Clarifications sought in Advance Ruling by M/s. Eclery Foods LLP 2. Incorrect payment of IGST and CGST instead of SGST and CGST 3. Return of application for fresh payment and filing 4. Fresh application for Advance Ruling with correct payment 5. Request for comments from Assistant Commissioner(ST) 6. Hearing notice issued to M/s. Eclery Foods LLP 7. Withdrawal of the Advance Ruling Application leading to dismissal Analysis: 1. M/s. Eclery Foods LLP sought clarifications in Advance Ruling, leading to the submission of an application for the same. 2. The application revealed an error where the dealer had paid the required fee of ?10,000 towards IGST and CGST instead of SGST and CGST, indicating a discrepancy in the payment. 3. Subsequently, the application was returned for making a fresh payment towards CGST+SGST and instructed to file a fresh application for Advance Ruling to rectify the payment error. 4. Following the return, M/s. Eclery Foods LLP reapplied for clarification in Advance Ruling by correctly paying ?10,000 towards (CGST+SGST) as required. 5. Before proceeding for a personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner(ST) was tasked with reviewing the dealer's contentions and providing comments on the clarification sought by the dealer, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the situation. 6. A hearing notice was issued to M/s. Eclery Foods LLP, scheduling the case for 17-07-2020 to proceed with the Advance Ruling process. 7. However, M/s. Eclery Foods LLP communicated via email that their business had ceased operations, and they no longer required a ruling on their application, resulting in the withdrawal of the Advance Ruling Application. Consequently, the application was deemed infructuous and dismissed as withdrawn, concluding the legal proceedings.
|
