In re Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
As regards the issue of denial of fair chance of hearing with sample, we hold that the Appellant may approach the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority with a fresh application along with the sample/reports of the products and in that case, the MAAR shall decide the issue on merits as per the provisions of law.
AAAR carefully gone through the order passed by the MAAR. As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 (a) ‘advance ruling‘ 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 sub-section (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. The section, therefore, envisages that an Advance Ruling can be asked for a transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. Any transaction of supply of goods or services or both, proposed to be undertaken, can be a subject of an application of Advance Ruling. However, the meaning of the expression `proposed to be undertaken’ cannot be expanded to include manufacturing, proposed to be undertaken. We agree with the observations of the MAAR in this respect. It is one of the fundamental rules of interpretation that if the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more is necessary than to expound those in their natural and ordinary sense as the words themselves in such a case best declare the intention of the legislature. There is no need for an artificial expansion of the expression as a result of which the interpretation may well go beyond the intention of the Legislature. The application is therefore barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 and we confirm the observations of the MAAR and also dismiss the appeal of the Appellant.
However, we find that MAAR has observed that the samples of the product are not submitted and in the absence of non-submission of the samples of the impugned product, they are not able to arrive at any conclusions with respect to the questions being raised in the application. The Appellant have, before us, in turn, submitted that the MAAR never raised the contention or requirement to submit the sample of the product in question for providing the Advance Ruling. The Appellant have further contended that had there been a requirement to physically examine the sample, the MAAR ought to have specifically directed the Appellant to produce the sample and postponed the hearing. In this regard, the Appellant has essentially pleaded that a fair chance of hearing was denied to them.
We have taken into consideration the above contention of the Appellant. We wish to note that there is nothing in the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, which prevents the Appellant from approaching the Advance Ruling Authority with a fresh application along with the sample/reports of the products and seek ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR APPELLATE ADVANCE RULING,MAHARASHTRA
(Proceedings under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
1. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”] by M/s. Saint-Gobain India Private Limited, 5th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Near Airport Road Metro Station, Mumbai – 400059 (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-51/2019-20/B-38 date& 17.03.2022, pronounced by the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (her, to as “the MAAR”).
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3.1 M/s Saint- Gobain India Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of glass and gypsum products. One of the gypsum products manufactured and marketed by the Appellant is the –Gypsum Board”.
3.2 Gypsum Board is a board / panel made of calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum), with or without additives, typically extruded between thick sheets of facer and backer paper, used in construction of interior walls and ceilings. Gypsum Board may be manufactured as plain, laminated and reinforced board and reinforcing materials used include glass, paper, vegetable fibers etc. Currently, the Appellant is manufacturing both paper reinforced and glass reinforced gypsum boards.
3.3 The Appellant is proposing to manufacture a new category of product under “Glass reinforced gypsum board” (hereinafter referred to as “GRG”) which is essentially going to be a gypsum plaster, reinforced with glass-fiber. The composition of the proposed product would be as approximately 94% of gypsum and adhesives; approx. 5% of paper; and >1% of glass fiber. The purpose of the GRG is to increase the flexural, tensile, compressive and impact strength of the new category product.
3.4 As per Serial No. 180C of Schedule III of the Notification No. 41/2017 — Central Tax (Rate), which amended the Notification No. 1/2017 — Central Tax (rate), dated 28th June 2017. the goods falling under Heading No.68.09 are subject to the levy of GST at the rate of 18%.
3.5 However. Notification No. 1/2017 — Central Tax (rate), dated 28th June 2017. provides for concessional rate of GST at the rate of 12% on supply of “Glass-fiber Reinforced Gypsum Board” which is reproduced under for ready reference:
