Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2021 (12) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 217 - AAR - GSTPermission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - classification of services - job work of slitting, cut to length and matt finishing of stainless steel sheets - to be classified under HSN code 9988 or otherwise? - HELD THAT - The issue on which the applicant has sought advance ruling is not in respect of any of the issues covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST/KGST Act 2017. Further the applicant has to discharge fee of ₹ 5,000/- each in terms of Section 97 (1) of the CGST Act 2017 as well as KGST Act 2017, whereas the applicant has discharged the fee of ₹ 5,000/- under KGST Act 2017 only and hence the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of CGST Act 2017. The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is hereby rejected.
Issues:
- Application for Advance Ruling under CGST Act and KGST Act - Clarification sought on e-way bill value for job work charges - Request for withdrawal of application - Discrepancy in fee payment under CGST and KGST Acts Analysis: 1. The case involves an application for Advance Ruling by a private limited company engaged in job work of slitting, cut to length, and matt finishing of stainless steel sheets. The applicant sought clarification on the value to be mentioned in the e-way bill for such job work services under HSN code 9988. 2. Subsequently, the applicant requested to withdraw the application citing clarification received from a circular issued by CBIC. However, it was noted that the issue raised did not fall under the purview of Section 97(2) of the CGST/KGST Act 2017. Additionally, there was a discrepancy in the fee payment, as the applicant only paid the fee under the KGST Act, while it was required to be paid under both CGST and KGST Acts. 3. Due to the reasons mentioned above, the Authority for Advance Rulings rejected the application filed by the Applicant. The ruling was based on the non-alignment of the raised issue with the provisions of the Acts and the incorrect fee payment made by the applicant.
|