In re Yanfeng Seating (India) Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Gujarat)
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) under Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Gujarat has rejected an application filed by M/s. Yanfeng Seating (India) Pvt Ltd. The company had sought clarity on GST rates and classification for items falling under HSN 9401, specifically distinguishing car seats (HSN 94012000) from other subcategories. However, the AAR found the application to be vague and containing questions beyond its jurisdiction.
Yanfeng Seating had approached the AAR citing ambiguities arising from recent changes in GST notifications and circulars affecting the classification and tax rates of items under HSN 9401, with some goods potentially moving between 18% and 28% GST slabs. The company posed several questions, including confirming the applicable GST rates across various items within HSN 9401, particularly for car seats. Additionally, the applicant sought guidance on practical issues related to import Bill of Entry (BOE) filings for imported car seats to ensure the correct 28% GST rate was reflected and applied. The application also included a question about whether other parts could be classified under Chapter 87089900, attracting a 28% GST rate.
Upon reviewing the application and during a personal hearing, the AAR noted significant deficiencies. The application reportedly lacked basic details about the applicant’s business activities, inputs, and manufacturing processes. More critically, the AAR determined that several of the questions asked fell outside the defined scope of matters on which an advance ruling can be sought under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Specifically, questions concerning the resolution of discrepancies during import BOE filing pertain to Customs procedures and are not within the AAR’s purview under GST law. Similarly, the question about classifying ‘other parts’ potentially under a different HSN (8708) might also extend beyond the direct classification of the goods primarily dealt with under HSN 9401 as presented in the initial questions, and the vagueness of “other parts” was also a factor. The applicant’s representative reportedly conceded during the hearing that the questions were not properly framed and that some issues raised were indeed beyond the AAR’s permissible scope.
