9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 131 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - requisite fee has not been deposited by the applicant - HELD THAT - Section 97(1) of CGST Act, 2017 provides that an applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling may make an application in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the advance ruling is sought. Similar provision is provided under section 97(1) of the HPGST Act, 2017 . The prescribed fee as per provisions of Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 is ₹ 5000/- under CGST head. Rule 104 of HPGST Rules, 2017 also provides for a fee of ₹ 5000/- under SGST head. Since the Advance Ruling has been sought with regards to applicability of provisions of CGST Act and HPGST Act, therefore the prescribed fee would be ₹ 5000/- each under CGST SGST heads. Since the application in this case is not accompanied by requisite fee of ₹ 10,000/-, therefore the same is rejected - This ruling however does not in any way affect the right of the applicant to file a fresh application for seeking ruling on the same points provided it satisfies the provisions of section 97(1) of the CGST/ HPGST Act, 2017.
Issues: Lack of fee payment for advance ruling application.
The judgment pertains to an application filed by M/s Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Shimla, seeking an advance ruling under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The application was found to be deficient as the required fee had not been deposited by the applicant despite directions issued for the same. The applicant's representative explained during the hearing that they were unable to set off the fees against the application on the GST common portal. The relevant provisions under section 97(1) of both CGST and HPGST Acts mandate the payment of a prescribed fee, which in this case amounts to ?5,000 each under CGST and SGST heads, totaling ?10,000. The Authority is empowered under section 98(2) to admit or reject the application after examination and hearing. As the application did not include the requisite fee, it was rejected. However, the ruling clarifies that the rejection does not preclude the applicant from filing a fresh application, provided all requirements are met. This judgment highlights the importance of complying with the prescribed fee requirements when seeking an advance ruling under the GST Acts. It underscores the Authority's discretion to reject applications lacking essential elements, such as the mandated fee. The ruling also emphasizes that the rejection of the current application does not prevent the applicant from reapplying in the future, subject to fulfilling all statutory provisions. It serves as a reminder to applicants to ensure full compliance with procedural requirements to avoid unnecessary delays or rejections in the advance ruling process.
|
