Case Law Details
In re Royal Enterprise (Vinesh Ranjitbhai Desai- Trade Name) (GST AAR Gujarat)
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) under GST in Gujarat has rejected an application filed by M/s. Royal Enterprise which sought a ruling on the classification and applicable tax rates for commodities described as DM Water, Distilled Water, and Conductive Water. The authority dismissed the application on procedural grounds, citing a significant lack of detail.
According to the AAR order, the application submitted by Royal Enterprise was vague and incomplete, providing no essential information about the applicant’s business activities, the specific supplies they are involved in, or details regarding their inputs. An undated and unsigned letter seeking the ruling was included, along with a certificate of analysis whose relevance was unclear. During a personal hearing, the authorized representative for Royal Enterprise acknowledged that the application lacked the necessary information and detailed write-up required for a proper assessment.
The AAR referred to Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which empowers the authority to either admit or reject an application after examination and hearing the applicant and concerned officer. Given the admitted deficiencies and the vague nature of the submission, the AAR concluded that the application did not meet the requirements for admission.
Consequently, the Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the application in terms of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The AAR did not proceed to rule on the classification and tax rate of DM Water, Distilled Water, or Conductive Water, as the application was dismissed at the preliminary stage due to its incompleteness.
No judicial precedents were cited in the provided text of the AAR order.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
M/s. Royal Enterprise, 6/B, Arti Society, Opp. Madrasi Mandir, Maninagar, Ahmedabad [for short —`applicant’] is registered under GST and their GSTIN is 24AFKPD7897P1ZK.
2. This application has been filed sans any details about their business activity, the supply they are engaged in, their inputs, etc. The application however, includes an undated and unsigned letter, wherein they have sought a ruling on the classification & rate of tax in respect of commodities viz D M Water, Distil Water & Conductive Water.
3. Personal hearing was granted on 24.04.2025 wherein Shri Nirmit Bhaysar, appeared on behalf of the applicant. On being asked during the course of personal hearing as to why the application should not be rejected in telins of the proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, on the grounds of it being vague and incomplete, the authorized representative fairly admitted that their application lacks the requisite detaNl.
Discussion and findings
6. At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the GGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the GUST Act.
7. Before adverting to answering the question, we find it prudent to reproduce the relevant extract of Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, viz..
Section 98. Procedure on receipt of application
(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:
8. On going through the application, we are constrained to state that the application is vague, incomplete, and without any primary details about their business activity, viz, the supply they are engaged in, their inputs, etc. On going through the certificate of analysis from Navyug Analytical Laboratory dated 22.7.2023, [enclosed with the application in addition to the undated and unsigned letter mentioned above], it is not forthcoming as to how the same is relevant. In-fact the application is not accompanied with any write-up giving relevant facts having a bearing on the question raised before us. Further, even the authorized representative admitted during the course of personal hearing that the application lacks relevant details, write up, etc.
9. In view of the foregoing, we are left with no option but to rule as under:
Ruling
We reject the application in terms of sub section (2) of Section 98.
Author Bio
