Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Micro Instruments (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. MAH/AAAR/ RS-SK/33/2020-21
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Micro Instruments (GST AAAR Maharashtra)

The MAAAR  rejected the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant i.e. M/s. Micro Instrument, to restore their Application dated 21.08.2019 seeking Rectification of Mistake in the MAAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22.03.2019, as the same had already been decided by the erstwhile Appellate Authority vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26A/2018-19 dated 11.12.2019, and therefore, the Miscellaneous Application dated 25.09.2020 filed by the Applicant was not legally maintainable and hence the same was liable to be rejected.

on perusal of the Chapter XVII of the CGST Act, 2017, pertaining to the Advance Ruling, it is seen that there is no statutory provision for admitting such miscellaneous application, whereby it is sought to restore the earlier rectification application for the purpose of re-hearing.

It is noteworthy that the Applicant has already exercised its right to file application for Rectification of Mistake in the original Order No. MAH/AAARJSS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22.03.2019, and this Appellate Authority has duly considered and decided the said Application for Rectification of Mistake vide its Order dated 11.12.2019, holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, in terms of the interpretation of the term apparent ‘error’ or ‘mistake’, as held by the various Hon’ble Courts including Hon’ble Apex Court, and therefore it does not warrant any action under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017. There is no provision under CGST Act, 2017, which provides the Applicant to file any more application, seeking the call­back, or the vacation, of the earlier MAAAR Orders dated 22.03.2019 & 11.12.2019 and restoration of its earlier Application dated 21.08.2019 filed for the rectification of the original Order dated 22.03.2019, which had already been heard and decided by this Appellate Authority vide its Order dated l 1.12.2019.

As regards the Hon’ble Kerala High Court Order dated 03.02.2020 in the case of the Sutherland Mortgage Services Inc.(Supra), relied upon by the Applicant, to underpin his argument that the said MAAAR Orders dated 22.03.2019 & 11.12.2019 suffer from the error of the law as the Hon’ble High Kerala High Court has opined that the GST law mandates the Advance Ruling Authority to decide upon the issue of the “place of supply” in order to determine the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both, as provided under Section 97(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is stated that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court was not pronounced, and therefore was not available for the consideration of the Appellate Authority at the time of the hearing of the rectification application dated 21.08.2019 or at the time of the issuance of the MAAAR Order dated 11.12.2019. Hence, it cannot be said the said MAAAR Orders dated 22.03.2019 & 11.12.2019 were against the legal principles laid down by the Constitutional Court. It is further observed that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, in the aforesaid case, has pronounced its Ruling dated 03.02.2020, whereby it has been held that the Advance Ruling Authority has made an error by taking stand that they do not have jurisdiction to decide upon the issue regarding place of supply, while holding that the issue related to determination of “place of supply” would come under the ambit of the Section 97(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017. for the determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both, by going through a process of reasoning, which is quite apparent from the said Order. Therefore, the error, pointed out by the Applicant in the impugned Orders dated 22.03.2019 & 11.12.2019, is not apparent on the face of the record, which would invite invocation of provisions of Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017. The said view also finds support from the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others /1997 (8) SCC 7151, wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed as under: –

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

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031