2019 (3) TMI 1564 - HC - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - subsection (6) of section 98 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that - The authority shall pronounce its advance ruling in writing within 90 days from the date of receipt of application. It was submitted that, in this case, the application was made on 07.10.2017 whereas, the impugned order has been passed on 22.02.2019. It was submitted that in the interregnum, between the date of application and between the date of advance ruling by the authority, various other authorities have decided the issue in favor of the applicant therein by holding that the goods would be classified as papad in classification no.1905 90 40. Issue Notice, returnable on 24.04.2019.

Summary

Issues: Delay in pronouncement of advance ruling, Composition of the authority, Alternative remedy of appeal

Delay in pronouncement of advance ruling:
The petitioner's advocate highlighted that despite the provision for an alternative remedy of appeal under section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the appellate authority had not been appointed. It was pointed out that as per subsection (6) of section 98 of the CGST Act, the authority should pronounce its advance ruling in writing within 90 days from the date of application receipt. However, in this case, the application was submitted on 07.10.2017, and the impugned order was issued on 22.02.2019, exceeding the stipulated timeline. Additionally, it was noted that the application was heard by a single Member, but the final order was signed by two Members. During this period, other authorities had already ruled in favor of the applicant, classifying the goods as 'papad' under classification no. 1905 90 40.

Composition of the authority:
The discrepancy in the composition of the authority, with the application being heard by a single Member but the order being signed by two Members, raised concerns regarding procedural irregularities. This discrepancy could impact the validity and fairness of the ruling, as the decision-making process should adhere to the prescribed guidelines and maintain consistency in the composition of the authority throughout the proceedings.

Alternative remedy of appeal:
The issue of the unavailability of the appellate authority, despite the provision for an alternative remedy of appeal under the relevant GST Acts, emphasized the importance of timely and effective redressal mechanisms for aggrieved parties. The delay in appointing the appellate authority could hinder the petitioner's right to seek recourse through the established appellate process, potentially leading to prolonged legal uncertainty and procedural challenges. The court's decision to issue a notice, returnable on a specified date, indicated a recognition of the need to address the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the absence of the appellate authority.