Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Vinit Gloves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR West Bengal)
Appeal Number : Advance Rulings No. 25/WBAAR/2021-22
Date of Judgement/Order : 29/03/2022
Related Assessment Year :

In re Vinit Gloves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR West Bengal)

In addition to the fact that the applicant has not made the application in FORM GST ARA-01 on the common portal, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act speaks 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.

During the course of hearing, the authorised representative of the applicant submits that the proper officer has already decided the issue and disposed of the application for refund.

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, therefore, rejected in terms of sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL

1.1 At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act, for short) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the WBGST Act, for short) have the same provisions in like matter except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the WBGST Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of these proceedings, the expression ‘GST Act’ would mean the CGST Act and the WBGST Act both.

1.2 The applicant submits that he has furnished application for refund in FORM GST RFD-01 on 03.01.2022 related to the period September, 2021.The proper officer has issued a show cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08 raising the following issue:

Invoices are not issued in the relevant period for which refund of unutilized input tax credit has been claimed. Invoices have been issued in the month of August, 2021 and therefore time of supply is to be considered in the month of August, 2021.

1.3 As per rule 104 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax rules, 2017, an application for obtaining an advance ruling under sub-section (1) of section 97 shall be made on the common portal in FORM GST ARA-01. The applicant has made this application vide ARN AD190222000902L on the common portal on 03.02.2022 but the application is not found in the prescribed format of FORM GST ARA-01.

AAR cannot give ruling on issue already decided by any Authority

1.4 The matter has been brought to the notice to the applicant and on 23.02.2022, the applicant has submitted manually paper copy of FORM GST ARA-01.

1.5 The applicant has raised question vide serial number 14 of the application in FORM GST ARA-01 which is submitted manually:

Invoices raised in a particular month and Export Shipment made in subsequent month for which ITC Refund Claim application submitted. The concerned department raises the issues – time of supply will be considered in the month when Invoices issued not in the month when shipment made.

1.6 In addition to the fact that the applicant has not made the application in FORM GST ARA-01 on the common portal, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act speaks 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.

1.7 During the course of hearing, the authorised representative of the applicant submits that the proper officer has already decided the issue and disposed of the application for refund.

1.8 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, therefore, rejected in terms of sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act.

Download Judgment/Order

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Telegram

taxguru on telegram GROUP LINK

Review us on Google

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2022
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930