9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 288 - HC - GSTLocus standi to file application for Advance Ruling application - applicant is a recipient of services - Seeking ruling on payment of upfront lease premium - exempt from GST or not - rejection on the ground that the appellants have no locus standi to file such an application - HELD THAT - The AAR in the order impugned in the writ petition has made a slight attempt to go into the aspect as to who is the applicant before the AAR seeking an advance ruling and concluded that the appellants being recipients of service is not entitled to maintain an application before the AAR. Under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in Section 95(c) the term applicant has been defined to mean any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act. Thus, in our view, the said term has been defined in the most widest possible manner to include any person registered or desirous of obtaining a registration under the Act. Undoubtedly, the appellants are registered under the provisions of the Act. Section 97 of the Act deals with application for advance ruling - The application filed by the appellants would fall under clause (b), Section 97(2) as the appellants seek for a ruling as regards applicability of an exemption notification no.12/2017- CGST (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017. If that be the case, it will be well within the jurisdiction of the AAR to consider the application on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of lack of locus standi - the appellants clearly fall within the definition of applicant as defined under Section 95(c) of the Act, therefore, the application filed by the appellants before the AAR has to decided on merits. In the case of M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge Ors. 2023 (1) TMI 333 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , this Court had taken note of Section 95(c) and held that the Act defines applicant to mean any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act and in the said case, the appellants being registered dealers under the provisions of the Act would fall within the definition of applicant as defined under Section 95( c) of the Act, though the appellants therein were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR. The matter is remanded back to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling to decide the application on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the rejection of an application for an advance ruling by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Services Tax, on the grounds of locus standi. Summary: Issue 1 - Locus Standi for Filing Advance Ruling Application: The appellants challenged the rejection of their application for an advance ruling by the AAR based on the grounds of locus standi. The Court noted that under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the term "applicant" is defined broadly to include any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act. As the appellants were registered under the Act, they fell within the definition of "applicant." The Court emphasized that the AAR should have considered the application on its merits rather than rejecting it based on lack of locus standi. Issue 2 - Interpretation of "Applicant" under the Act: The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the Act defines "applicant" to include any person registered under the Act. Even though the appellants were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR, being registered dealers under the Act, they were considered as falling within the definition of "applicant" as per Section 95(c) of the Act. Judgment: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the AAR rejecting the application. The matter was remanded back to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling to decide the application on its merits and in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case. No costs were awarded, and urgent copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon completion of legal formalities. This judgment highlights the importance of considering applications for advance rulings on their merits rather than dismissing them solely based on procedural grounds like locus standi.
|
