9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 332 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of application - Classification of goods - Hydraulic Power Pack - falling under HSN 8412 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST can be treated as Parts of heading 8906 attracting 5% IGST? - Schedule I (Sr.No.252) of Notification no 1/ 2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT - The applicant, prior to the opportunity of hearing, vide their letter dated 24.08.2021, requested this authority to permit them to withdraw their application, quoting the reason that their business model has been changed and they do not require the ruling. Further the applicant has to discharge fee of ₹ 5,000/- each in terms of Section 97(1) of the CGST Act 2017 as well as KGST Act 2017, where as 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 the CGST Act 2017. The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is hereby rejected.
Issues:
1. Application for Advance Ruling under CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017 regarding classification of Hydraulic Power Pack. 2. Request for withdrawal of application by the Applicant. 3. Discharge of fee under KGST Act only. Analysis: 1. The Applicant, engaged in designing and manufacturing Electro-Hydraulic Systems, sought an advance ruling on the classification of an Autonomous Power Pack under HSN 8412 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for marine applications. The query was whether it can be treated as "Parts of heading 8906" attracting 5% IGST. The Applicant supplied Hydraulic Power Packs under HSN 8412, paying 18% GST as per entry number 317 of Schedule III to Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The application was made in accordance with Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017, along with the requisite fee. 2. Before the opportunity of hearing, the Applicant requested to withdraw the application citing a change in their business model, rendering the ruling unnecessary. However, the Applicant had only discharged the fee under the KGST Act, not the CGST Act, as required by Section 97(1) of both Acts. Consequently, the application was liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The withdrawal request was made via a letter dated 24.08.2021, leading to the rejection of the application by the Authority for Advance Rulings. 3. The Authority, in its ruling, rejected the Applicant's request for an advance ruling due to the failure to discharge the fee under both the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017. The rejection was based on the Applicant's incomplete compliance with the fee payment requirements, as stipulated by the relevant provisions of the Acts. Therefore, the application was rejected by the Authority for Advance Rulings in Karnataka, as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the application, withdrawal request, and subsequent rejection by the Authority for Advance Rulings in Karnataka.
|
