9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 961 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - rate of GST on e-tender floated for purchasing of tailoring Kits consisting 1 set of Sewing Machine, 1 set of Over lock Machine and 1 PVC moulded Stool - ruling sought on behalf of supplier - seeking Ruling, as a supplier itself - HELD THAT - Section 103(1) CGST Act stipulates that Advance Ruling shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer/ jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Section 95(a) CGST Act defines advance ruling as a decision provided in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - GRIMCO has not substantiated its locus standi to file said application as per section 95(a) CGST Act. We hold that GRIMCO s supplier is not bound by our Ruling as per section 103(1) CGST Act. The Application is hereby rejected as non-maintainable under Section 95(a) CGST Act.
Issues:
1. Determination of GST rate on a kit consisting of sewing machine, overlock machine, and PVC moulded stool. 2. Clarification on whether the applicant, GRIMCO, is seeking the ruling on behalf of its supplier or as a supplier itself. 3. Analysis of the jurisdiction and binding nature of the Advance Ruling as per the CGST Act. Issue 1: Determination of GST rate on the kit: The case involves M/s. Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. (GRIMCO) procuring toolkits and supplying them to various D.I.C. offices for distribution to beneficiaries of Govt. of Gujarat schemes. GRIMCO floated an e-tender for purchasing tailoring kits, including a sewing machine, overlock machine, and PVC moulded stool, with different GST rates applicable to each component. The applicant sought clarification on the GST rate applicable to the entire kit. Issue 2: Clarification on applicant's status: During a virtual hearing, the applicant's representative, Shri Ankit Shah, was asked to clarify whether GRIMCO was seeking the ruling on behalf of its supplier or as a supplier itself. The Authority highlighted the need for a revised application to determine GRIMCO's role in the transaction, as it was not clear from the initial submission. However, the applicant did not provide the necessary clarification, leaving the status unresolved. Issue 3: Jurisdiction and binding nature of the Advance Ruling: The Authority referred to Section 103(1) of the CGST Act, which states that an Advance Ruling is binding only on the applicant and the concerned officer/jurisdictional officer. Section 95(a) of the CGST Act defines Advance Ruling as a decision related to the supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed by the applicant. The Authority found that GRIMCO failed to establish its standing to file the application under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, leading to the conclusion that GRIMCO's supplier is not bound by the ruling. Consequently, the application was rejected as non-maintainable under Section 95(a) of the CGST Act. In summary, the judgment addressed the determination of GST rates on a kit, sought clarification on the applicant's status, and analyzed the jurisdiction and binding nature of Advance Rulings under the CGST Act, ultimately rejecting the application due to the applicant's failure to establish its standing and clarify essential details during the proceedings.
|
