Advance ruling on service tax issue sought – Application rejected as applicant does not qualify to do so as per Sec 96A(C) and 96C(2) of the Finance Act, 1994

The application is rejected as not maintainable since the applicant do not fall in the category of organisation who can seek advance ruling in terms of Section 96A(C) and 96C(2) of the Finance Act. 1994.

BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
(CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX)
NEW DELHI

Order No. AAR/01(ST)/2007
Application No. AAR/15(ST)/2006

Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri (Chairman)

Dated : January 4, 2007

RULING

The applicant filed this application under Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short “the Service Tax Law”). The office of the Authority pointed out defects and consequently a notice was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why the application should not be rejected. Para 2 of the notice reads as under :

“2. The Authority is tentatively of the view that the said application is liable to be rejected on the following two grounds :

(a) that in terms of section 96A(b) of the Act it appears that you do not satisfy the requirements of being an applicant;

(ii) the question raised by you do not appear to be covered under any of the clauses of section 96C(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.”

2. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the show cause notice and stated the reply would be filed at the time of hearing of the application.

3. Mr. Deepak Bansal, representative of the applicant, filed the reply. Para 3 of the reply reads as follows :

“At the ousted we tend to agree with you that as per Section 96A(C) and 96C(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, we do not strictly fall in the category of organization who can seek advance ruling.”

4. In view of the reply quoted above, grounds (i) & (ii) in the show cause notice have to be confirmed.

5. Accordingly the application is rejected as not maintainable.

NF