Page 134 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

92 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 92 (A.A.R. - GST - Chh.)
BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING UNDER GST,
CHHATTISGARH
Smt. Kalpana Tiwari, Member (SGST) and Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Member (CGST)
IN RE : ANJU PARAKH

Order No. STC/AAR/06/2019, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, dated 21-1-2020
Advance Ruling Application - Fee payment for seeking Ruling - Non-
payment thereof as prescribed - Maintainability of application - In instant
case, applicant paying a fee of ` 5,000 only under SGST Act and no fee of simi-
lar amount paid under CGST Act - Notwithstanding reasoning given by appli-
cant for same, legal provisions require payment of fee under both laws which
were made known to applicant - In view of fact that applicant has not com-
plied with procedure for filing application, same is not maintainable - Appli-
cant at liberty to seek refund of fee paid under SGST law - Rule 104 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Section 97 of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017. [paras 4, 5]
Application rejected
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 25/25/2017-GST, dated 21-12-2017 ...................................................... [Paras 1, 3]
[Order]. - Proceedings : The applicant Smt. Anju Parakh, C-138, Sector-1,
Devendra Nagar; Raipur, Chhattisgarh, GSTIN 22AESPP0220P1ZB has filed the
application U/s. 97 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 regard-
ing GST applicability on Medical Services with regard to providing vaccination
from clinic. The application filed by the applicant received on 11-9-2019 was in-
complete and was also found not to be in the prescribed format GST ARA-01, as
specified under Section 97(1) of Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017. Further, the appli-
cant had deposited only SGST fee of Rs. 5000/- vide CPIN 19092200015055, dated
11-9-2019, and had not deposited Rs. 5000/- for CGST as specified in Circular
No. 25/25/2017-GST, dated 21-12-2017, issued by the Central Board of Excise
and Customs, New Delhi. This failure on their part to comply with the aforesaid
procedure as stipulated supra, was; also made known to the applicant vide Let-
ter No. jkdvk/vfoizk/06/2019/10441, uokjk;iqj vVyuxj, fnukad 20-9-2019.
In order to have a firsthand information on the views of the applicant
and in keeping with the established principles of natural justice as also to make
aware the applicant of the stipulated provisions of the statute, despite non-
compliance of prescribed rules of CGST Act, 2017 the applicant was granted a
personal hearing before this authority on 27-12-2019 under Rule 98(2), which was
attended by Shri Rajkumar Parakh, husband and authorized representative of
Smt. Anju Parakh, the applicant.
2.1 During the course of personal hearing before this authority, the ap-
plicant’s representative, Shri Rajkumar Parakh referred to an email dated 13-10-
2019, from Support GSTN stating that it has been informed therein, that the op-
tion for payment in advance ruling is only available for SGST head, CGST and
IGST will remain blocked, as the same is not required and that the details and the
communications related to the same is only done through State authority. It was
his further contention that on 11-9-2019, GST site allowed only paying for SGST
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  134