Case Law Details
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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
