Case Law Details
In re Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra)
Section 97 (2) (a) of the CGST Act, states that the question on which the advance ruling is sought under the CGST Act, shall be in respect of classification of any goods or services or both. Thus, questions may be raised by an applicant in respect of classification of goods, supply of which is being undertaken or proposed tc be undertaken. To classify the impugned product. in light of the submissions made by the applicant, it is imperative that the samples of the same are produced before this authority in order to enable us to take a balanced view in the matter especially since the applicant has made technical submissions as well regarding the contents of the impugned product.
The applicant has not submitted any samples of the product classification of which is sought by them. In the absence of non-submissions of samples of the impugned product we are not able to arrive at any conclusions with respect to the questions being raised by them. We agree with the submissions made by the jurisdictional officer that the proposed product is not yet manufactured and hence in absence of any sample of said product being tested from accredited laboratory to determine exact nature of product, its classification cannot be arrived, at this stage.
As per Section 95 of the CGST Act,(a) ” advance ruling” means a decision provided by the authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on question specified sub section (2) of section 97 or sub-section (1) section 100, in relation to the supplier of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
Hence for the purpose of applying for advance ruling, one mist raise questions specified in sub section (2) of of section 97 or sub-section (1) section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed tot, undertaken. Thus, the said section says that, in the case of goods, it is the supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. It is not the case that the manufacture of goods may be undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. Thus, goods in respect of which supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, should be existing. In the subject case applicant has submitted that they are proposing to manufacture the impugned product, which are presently not in existence. Thus their application is also barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
