9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 220 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - business of supplying, erecting and commissioning of elevators and escalators in building - Such buildings consists of more than one residential unit and falls under the definition of residential complex - applicability of Sl.No.3(v)(b) of Notification 11/2017-CT or not - HELD THAT - The Applicant, vide their e-mail dated 26.08.2021, informed this authority that they withdraw their application, filed for Advance ruling. Further the applicant has to discharge fee of ₹ 5,000/- each under CGST Act 2017 as well as KGST Act 2017 as per Section 97 (1), 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 Involved:
Application for Advance Ruling under CGST Act and KGST Act - Withdrawal of application - Discrepancy in fee payment under CGST Act and KGST Act - Rejection of application under Section 98(2) of CGST Act 2017. Analysis: The case involved an application for Advance Ruling filed by a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of supplying, erecting, and commissioning elevators and escalators in buildings. The applicant sought clarification on the availability of a specific notification under the CGST Act related to residential complexes with multiple units. However, the applicant later informed the authority of their decision to withdraw the application. It was noted that the applicant had only paid the required fee under the KGST Act, while the fee under the CGST Act remained unpaid. This discrepancy led to the rejection of the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017. The Authority for Advance Rulings, Karnataka, considered the withdrawal of the application by the applicant and the failure to discharge the fee under the CGST Act as required by Section 97(1). The applicant's communication regarding the withdrawal of the application was duly noted. However, the discrepancy in the fee payment under the CGST Act and KGST Act was a crucial factor leading to the rejection of the application. The authority emphasized the importance of complying with the fee requirements under both Acts for the application to be considered valid. In their ruling, the authority stated that the application for advance ruling was rejected based on the reasons outlined, primarily the failure to discharge the fee under the CGST Act while only paying the fee under the KGST Act. The rejection was made under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017. The decision highlighted the significance of fulfilling all statutory requirements, including fee payment, under both the CGST Act and KGST Act for the proper processing and consideration of applications for Advance Ruling.
|
