2021 (12) TMI 31 - AAR - GST

Seeking withdrawal of application - no application in prescribed format and no proof of fee paid for the application was uploaded - HELD THAT - In light of the fact that no application was filed in prescribed form. no proof of the payment of fee was given and also on request of the applicant for the withdrawal of the contention/application for advance ruling the Authority hereby agrees to the withdrawal of the application for the advance ruling without going into the merit of the case and passing any ruling on the argument given by the applicant for which advance ruling was sought for. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file application in prescribed form and provide proof of fee payment for Advance Ruling application.
2. Request for withdrawal of the Advance Ruling application.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the proprietor of a printing business who was printing marketing material for an international college. The applicant failed to submit the application in the prescribed format and did not provide proof of fee payment along with the online application. The Authority noted that only arguments and a sample tax invoice were uploaded during the online application process. The provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Madhya Pradesh Goods & Service Tax Act were considered to be identical unless specifically mentioned otherwise. The applicant was registered under GST with a valid GSTIN.

2. During the personal hearing, the representative of the applicant, Shree Mayank Agarwal, appeared before the Authority. The Authority inquired about the reasons for the non-compliance with the application requirements and the absence of proof of fee payment. Shree Mayank Agarwal acknowledged the mistake and requested to withdraw the contention/application made by the applicant. Subsequently, the Authority accepted the request for withdrawal without delving into the merits of the case or issuing a ruling based on the arguments presented by the applicant. The withdrawal was approved, and it was specified that the ruling would be valid unless declared void under specific provisions of the GST Act.

In conclusion, the Authority for Advance Ruling in Madhya Pradesh allowed the withdrawal of the Advance Ruling application due to the failure to comply with the prescribed application format and provide proof of fee payment. The ruling emphasized that no decision would be made on the merits of the case, and the withdrawal was accepted without issuing a ruling based on the arguments presented. The validity of the ruling was contingent upon the provisions outlined in the GST Act unless declared void under the relevant sections.