2022 (4) TMI 402 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - ITC Refund Claim - the authorised representative of the applicant submits that the proper officer has already decided the issue and disposed of the application for refund - HELD THAT - The instant application is, therefore, found liable for rejection. The aforesaid observation has been brought to the notice to the authorised representative of the applicant in terms of provision laid down in sub-section (2) of section 98 of the Act ibid who has admitted the same. The application is, rejected in terms of sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for refund in FORM GST RFD-01 related to the period September, 2021.
2. Show cause notice issued in FORM GST RFD-08 regarding the time of supply for invoices issued in August, 2021.
3. Application for obtaining an advance ruling not in the prescribed format of FORM GST ARA-01.
4. Question raised regarding time of supply for invoices and export shipment in different months.
5. Admissibility of the application when the issue is already decided by the proper officer.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a refund application in FORM GST RFD-01 for September 2021. The proper officer issued a show cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08, stating that invoices were issued in August 2021, impacting the time of supply for the refund claim.

2. The application for an advance ruling was not in the correct format of FORM GST ARA-01 as required by rule 104 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Despite submitting a manual copy later, the initial non-compliance was noted.

3. A question was raised by the applicant regarding the time of supply concerning invoices and export shipments in different months. However, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act prohibits admitting applications where the issue is already pending or decided in any proceedings.

4. The authorized representative acknowledged during the hearing that the proper officer had already decided and disposed of the issue related to the application for refund. Consequently, the application was found liable for rejection as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act.

5. In conclusion, the application for an advance ruling was rejected due to the issue being previously decided by the proper officer, rendering it inadmissible for further consideration. The rejection was made in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act, highlighting the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the admissibility criteria for advance rulings.