Case Law Details
In re Grayeye IT Systems Pvt.Ltd (GST AAR Tamil Nadu)
The case concerns an application filed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Tamil Nadu, by a company engaged in OEM activities, system integration, networking, and supply of IT hardware items. The applicant sought clarification on various procedural aspects relating to E-way bill generation, invoicing, and place of supply under the GST framework.
The applicant presented three specific scenarios. First, it dealt with a situation where goods are supplied by a vendor located in one State directly to a customer in another State, while the applicant is located in Tamil Nadu and raises the invoice. The goods do not physically enter Tamil Nadu, raising questions regarding E-way bill handling.
The second scenario involved transactions where both the supplier and the customer are located in the same State, but the applicant is situated in a different State. In such cases, the supplier issued invoices charging CGST and SGST instead of IGST, and the applicant sought clarification on E-way bill provisions and place of supply rules.
The third scenario concerned the validity and timing of E-way bill generation, particularly in light of the extension from 180 days to 365 days. The applicant sought clarity on whether the time limit should be computed from the date of invoice, Part-A/Part-B generation, or extended validity.
During the personal hearing, the applicant reiterated that they execute government contracts involving supply and installation of IT hardware. Goods are often moved based on delivery challans along with E-way bills, while invoices are issued after completion of installation. The applicant specifically requested guidance on the appropriate procedure for E-way bill generation in such cases.
However, the Authority examined the nature of the questions raised and found that all issues pertained to procedural aspects of E-way bill generation, including its validity, movement of goods, and documentation requirements. The Authority noted that under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017 advance rulings can only be sought on specific matters such as classification, applicability of notifications, time and value of supply, input tax credit, tax liability, registration requirement, or whether an activity constitutes supply.
It was observed that the applicant had marked certain categories in the application form, such as classification and determination of time and value of supply. However, upon detailed examination, the Authority found that the actual queries did not fall under any of the permissible categories listed in Section 97(2). Instead, they were related solely to procedural compliance under E-way bill provisions.
The Authority further noted that E-way bill procedures are already governed by Chapter XVI of the CGST Rules, 2017. Since the applicant’s questions were related to procedural implementation rather than substantive legal interpretation under the specified categories, they were considered outside the scope of advance ruling.
Accordingly, the Authority concluded that the application was not maintainable. In exercise of powers under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the application was rejected on the ground that the issues raised did not fall within the jurisdiction of advance ruling.
In conclusion, the AAR Tamil Nadu rejected the application without addressing the merits of the questions raised, holding that procedural queries relating to E-way bills are not admissible for advance ruling under the statutory framework.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
M/s. GRAYEYE IT SYSTEMS PVT.LTD. No.189, The Ark, 2nd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai — 600 119 (hereinafter called as the “Applicant”) are registered under the GST Act with GSTIN: 33AAGCG2959R1ZY. The Applicant is engaged in OEM (original Equipment Manufacturers), supplies of system integration and Networking, IT hardware items. The applicant seeks advance ruling for generation of E-way bill — billing address one State and shipping address another State in the following scenario:
Scenario-1:
The applicant handle certain GeM (Government e-Marketplace) contracts related to Government of India/Tamil Nadu and few other State Government Department. They have their suppliers in one State (e.g. New Delhi). Their GeM contract customer is located in another State (e.g. Jammu and Kashmir). Applicant’s office is located in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Their supplier at New Delhi directly supplies the materials on behalf of the applicant to their customers located at Jammu Kashmir. The supplier will issue an invoice on the applicant under Billing and Shipping address concept and the applicant will issue an outward invoice on the Jammu and Kashmir customer. Movement of goods takes place from New Delhi to Jammu and Kashmir without entering the State of Tamil Nadu. In this scenario, how to handle E-way Bill?
Scenario-2:
One of their suppliers is located at Secunderabad (Telangana) and supplies materials directly to the applicant’s customer at Hyderabad on behalf of the applicant. The supplier at Secunderabad issues tax invoice to the applicant in Chennai. But the supplier uses the concept of Bill to Ship to and while issuing tax invoice he charges CGST and SGST instead of IGST. But, as per Rule 11 of the Place of Supply of Goods/Services, the levy should be as IGST. If the Bill to and Ship to customer is the same State and the applicant company is of a different State, what is the provision for E-way bill. The applicant would also like to get clarified on Issuance of Invoice/place of supply of goods/services.
Scenario-3:
E-way Bill generation- concept of 180 days/365 days: They raise invoice to their customers to receive the payment. But they supply the materials within 90 days from the date of actual invoice. As they are assembled products industry as well as an OEM, as per the present GST council amendment, E-way bill generation has been increased from 180 days to 365 days. Now they request to clarify on the provisions of the E-way bill i.e., whether the applicant can generate E-way after 180 days/365 days. Whether is it applicable from the date of generation of Part-A/Part-B or extended validity or else from the date of original e-invoice.
2. The Applicant has made a payment of application fees of Rs.5,000/- each under sub rule (1) of Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 and SGST Rules, 2017.
Statement of relevant facts:
3. The applicant handles certain GeM contracts related to Government of India/Tamil Nadu and a few other State Government Department. The applicant seeks clarification on E-way bill- Bill to Ship to concept, Issuance of Invoice/place of supply of goods and services.
Interpretation of Law by the Applicant based on the statement of facts:
4. The applicant has claimed in their application that they had submitted relevant circulars in respect of E-way bills. But no such circulars were available on records.
5. The applicant is under the administrative control of State Tax Authority. The concerned Authorities of the State and Centre were addressed to offer detailed remarks and also to provide pendency report on the questions raised by the applicant in their ARA application. Since no remarks were received from the State jurisdictional authorities as well as the Central jurisdictional authorities, it is construed that there are no pending proceedings against the applicant on the questions raised by them in their advance ruling application.
PERSONAL HEARING
6.1 The applicant was given an opportunity to be heard in person on 17.02.2026 vide this office memorandum No.50/2025, dated 10.02.2026. Mr. B.Abdul Kalam, Manager, M/ s. Grayeye IT Systems Private Ltd., Chennai and Mr. K. Pradeep Narayanan, Chartered Accountant appeared as Authorized Representatives on behalf of the applicant for the hearing. The AR reiterated the submissions made in their application for advance ruling.
6.2 The AR informed that they get orders from Government portal (GeM) for supply and installation of Information Technology (IT) related hardware to various government institutions. It is a consolidated work order for both supply and installation of the IT hardware. Based on the orders, goods required for execution of the installation will move from their assembling unit at NOIDA to various locations of their customers and the Billing is done from their Chennai office. The invoice is raised once the installation is completed. The movement of goods is done by issuing Delivery Challan (DC) accompanied by an e-way bill generated based on such DC. The AR requested the Authority to give a decision on the procedure to be adopted for e-way bill for the movement of goods in case the invoice is raised after completion of the execution of the work order and the goods are moving only based on the DC.
6.3 The Members informed the AR that the questions raised by the applicant are related to the provisions of E-way bills which do not fall under the category mentioned in the section 97 (2) of the CGST Act 2017 and therefore, is out of purview of the advance ruling. The AR accepted the legal provision pointed out by the Members.
Discussions and Findings:
7.1 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the applicant in the advance ruling application, and the submissions made during the personal hearing held on. 17.02.2026.
7.2 The Applicant is engaged in OEM (original Equipment Manufacturers), supplies of system integration and Networking, IT hardware items.
7.3 In their application for advance ruling, the applicant has raised a question “E-way Bill generation – validity and applicability” which appears to be vague and not a definite one. But from the submissions dated 10.10.2025 made by the applicant, it is seen that they have query on three situations faced by them on which they want clarifications. It is also noted that all the three scenarios raised by the applicant involve procedures of e-way bill generation.
scenario- 1:
How to handle E-way Bill in cases where the supplier is one state and makes direct inter-state supplies to a customer situated in another state by raising an invoice on the applicant who is situated in the state of Tamil Nadu? The applicant raises outward invoice on their customers and movement of goods takes place directly from the supplier to the customers without entering Tamil Nadu.
scenario-2:
What is the provision for E-way bill if the customer is the same State and the applicant company is in a different State?
scenario-3:
With regard to E-way Bill generation and the concept of 180 days/365 days, whether this concept is applicable from the date of generation of Part-A/Part-B or extended validity of the invoice or else from the date of original e-invoice?
7.4 Further, against Si. No. 13 of the application that asks for issues on which advance ruling is required, the applicant has marked three issues, namely, “classification of goods and or services or both”; “determination of time and value of supply of goods and or services or both” and “whether any particular thing done by the Applicant with respect to any goods and/or services or both amounts to or results in supply of goods and/or services or both, within the meaning of that term”. But on going through the applicant’s letter dated 10.10.2025, it is seen that all the three questions raised by the applicant pertain to the generation of e-way bill and its validity and procedure to be adopted for movement of goods.
7.5 We would like to bring to the notice of the applicant, Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017 which states:
(2) The question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of-
(a) classification of any goods or services or both;
(b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
(c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;
(g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term_
7.6 It is to be noted that this Authority is mandated to provide advance ruling on questions which are in respect of the issues enumerated in sub-clause (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017 . We find that the queries raised by the applicant pertains to e-way bill generation and procedures therein, which do not get covered under any of the sub-clauses from (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017
7.7 Moreover, the questions raised by the applicant request decision on the procedures relating to e-way bills which are already covered under Chapter XVI of the CGST Act 2017
7.8 Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the query raised by the applicant in the application for advance ruling filed in the instant case, is not liable for admission, and as such, the application filed by the applicant, per se, is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 which reads as,
“(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorised representative and the concerned officer or his authorised representative, by order, either admit or reject the application:
Provided 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:
Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of hearing has been given to the applicant:
Provided also that where the application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be specified in the order.”
8. Based on the above discussion, we rule as under.
RULING
The Application for Advance Ruling filed by the Applicant in Form GST ARA-01 dated 24.10.2025 is rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 , in view of reasons discussed in detail above.
Author Bio
