Case Law Details
In re M/s Bakson Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Himachal Pradesh)
The applicant is not engaged in the manufacture and supply of ENA presently. The representatives were asked to submit as to why the applicant is seeking advance ruling on this issue in view of the fact that advance ruling is binding only on the takpayer who has sought it. They were told that a ruling on this issue will not help the applicant in any way as he is not the supplier of the same.
Sub-section (a) of section 95 of the HPGST/CGST Act defines advance ruling as:-
“means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section(2) of section 97 or subsection (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.”
Since the applicant is neither supplier of ENA nor he proposes to undertake supply of ENA, therefore the application for advance ruling is not admitted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
