Case Law Details
In re Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat)
We refer to Section 103(1) CGST Act, which stipulates that Advance Ruling shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer/ jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Section 95(a) CGST Act defines advance ruling as a decision provided in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. GRIMCO has not substantiated its locus standi to file said application as per section 95(a) CGST Act. We hold that GRIMCO’s supplier is not bound by our Ruling as per section 103(1) CGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
1. M/s. Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GRIMCO, for the sake of brevity) has submitted that it procures different types of toolkits and supplies these kits to various D.I.C. offices for distributing these kits to beneficiaries of different schemes of Govt. of Gujarat.
2. GRIMCO submitted that vide GEM portal, it floated e-tender for purchasing of tailoring Kits consisting 1 set of Sewing Machine, 1 set of Over lock Machine and 1 PVC moulded Stool. It submitted that its supplier had to file the online financial bid with details of goods, HSN code, Rate per Unit with GST and related details, in the bid.
3. GRIMCO submitted that GST rate on sewing machine is 12% and on PVC moulded stool is 18% and sought opinion of GST rate on said kit.
4.1 Virtual hearing granted on 22-3-22 was attended by Shri Ankit Shah. Shri Shah was required to clarify the following:
a. Whether GRIMCO was seeking this Ruling on behalf of its supplier, for the supplier to quote GST rate in Tender? or,
b. Whether GRIMCO seeking Ruling, as a supplier itself? If so, will GRIMCO raise GST invoices on D.I.C?
4.2 Shri Shah was informed that from the Application it is not clear whether GRIMCO is the supplier of goods in subject Application before us. Shri Shah was apprised to submit revised application, if need be. He was informed that such revised application would be taken on record as a continuum to present application itself.
5. Till date, GRIMCO has not clarified the queries raised during the hearing.
6. Revenue has neither submitted its comments nor appeared for hearing.
7. We refer to Section 103(1) CGST Act, which stipulates that Advance Ruling shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer/ jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Section 95(a) CGST Act defines advance ruling as a decision provided in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. GRIMCO has not substantiated its locus standi to file said application as per section 95(a) CGST Act. We hold that GRIMCO’s supplier is not bound by our Ruling as per section 103(1) CGST Act.
8. The Application is hereby rejected as non-maintainable under Section 95(a) CGST Act.
