Case Law Details
In re Paryag Trade Links (Sumit Babbar) (GST AAR Punjab)
1. Background: The Advance Ruling Authority in Punjab rejected the application submitted by Paryag Trade Links due to non-compliance with the prescribed format and fee requirements. The applicant, a Works Contractor, sought clarification on the type of GST to be charged in a repair work contract with a company not registered in Punjab.
2. Proceedings: Paryag Trade Links submitted an application for advance ruling but failed to adhere to the prescribed format (ARA-01) and neglected to submit the required fee of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. 5,000 each for CGST and SGST). Notices were issued on 31.03.2022 and 27.09.2022, instructing the applicant to rectify the deficiencies by submitting the application in the proper format and depositing the required fee. Despite multiple opportunities, the applicant did not fulfill the necessary requirements.
3. Rejection Basis: The rejection was based on the applicant’s failure to submit the application in the prescribed format (ARA-01) and non-payment of the requisite fee. The regulations stipulate a fee of Rs. 10,000 for filing an Advance Ruling application, with Rs. 5,000 allocated for both CGST and SGST. As the applicant did not rectify the deficiencies within the given opportunities, the application was rejected.
4. Note on Applicable Acts: The ruling emphasized that the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and PGST Act, 2017, are nearly identical. Specific reference to dissimilar provisions in the two acts is highlighted, and a reference to provisions in one act implies a reference to the corresponding provisions in the other act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
