In re The Travancore Mats & Matting Co. (GST AAR Kerala)
The first question raised by the applicant is whether a debit note can be issued by the applicant for the difference of the rate of tax charged in the tax invoice as specified under section 34(3) of the CGST Act. The second question raised is whether the Bhavani branch of the applicant having GSTIN 33AABFT8331N1Y in Tamilnadu can raise debit note for the difference of the rate of tax charged in the tax invoice issued to the applicant on the branch transfer and on supplies made by them to other customers. The Bhavani branch being a distinct person as per provisions of Section 25 (4) of the CGST Act is outside the jurisdiction of this authority and therefore the question raised pertains to an activity / transaction proposed to be performed by a registered person who is not within the jurisdiction of this authority. The third question is whether the applicant can avail input tax credit on such debit note raised by the Bhavani branch of the applicant which is dependent on the answer to the second question.
Thus, the questions raised by the applicant are not in respect of any matter specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97 of the CGST Act and also in respect of activity / transaction proposed to be performed by a registered person who is not within the jurisdiction of this authority.
Further it is stated by the applicant that they have sought this advance ruling as the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Coimbatore has raised objections regarding the payment of GST by the applicant and though the applicant does not accept the objection raised by the officer, prefers to settle the issue by payment of the differential tax. Therefore, it is evident that the questions raised by the applicant regarding the issue of debit note for the difference in rate of tax charged on the tax invoice has arisen on account of objection raised by the departmental officer. The first proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act stipulates that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act.
This authority is a creature of statute and has to function within the limits of the jurisdiction granted to it. We have already concluded above that the questions raised by the applicant are not in respect of any matter that is specified in Section 97 (2) of the CGST Act and also in respect of activity / transaction proposed to be performed by a registered person who is not within the jurisdiction of this authority. Therefore, this authority is not having jurisdiction to issue rulings on the questions raised by the applicant.
