Page 140 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

506 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
referred to as the “Appellant” or Applicant interchangeably) against
the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-38/2017-18/B-45, dated 8-6-2018
[2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 658 (A.A.R. - GST)], which was disposed of by
the AAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/21/2018-19, dated 17-2-
2019 [2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 464 (App. A.A.R. - GST)]. However, pursu-
ant to the said AAAR order dated 17-2-2019, the Appellant, M/s.
H.P. Sales Pvt. Ltd., has brought to our notice that the impugned
AAAR Order dated 17-2-2019 had not considered the additional
submissions dated 11-2-2019 in entirety, filed by them before the
AAAR, which was also referred and duly relied upon by them in
favour of their case during the course of the personal hearing con-
ducted on 12-2-2019. They, further, pleaded that non-consideration
of the abovementioned additional submissions dated 11-2-2019,
which would have significant bearing on the impugned AAAR or-
der dated 17-2-2019, is an error, which is error, apparent on the face
of the record, and hence the same need to be amended as per the
provision of Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is reproduced
hereinunder :
Section 102 of CGST Act, 2017 : Rectification of advance ruling
The Authority or the Appellate Authority may amend any order
passed by it under section 98 or section 101, so as to rectify any er-
ror apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the
Authority or the Appellate Authority or the National Appellate Au-
thority on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the con-
cerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, the applicant or the appel-
lant within a period of six months from the date of the order :
Provided that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the
tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit
shall be made unless the applicant, appellant, the Authority or the
Appellate Authority has been given an opportunity of being heard.
(C) Further, the Appellant, in support of their submissions made in the
application for rectification of error, have also cited various judicial
pronouncements, some of which are being mentioned hereinbelow :
(i) Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Deva Metal Powders
Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP [2008 (221) E.L.T. 16
(S.C.)];
(ii) Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of C.M.S. Info Sys-
tems Ltd. v. the Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East & Ors.
[2019-VIL-326-BOM = 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 27 (Bom.)]
(iii) Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Rostam Parvaresh
v. Union of India [2010 (259) E.L.T. 342 (Bom.)]
All the above judgments have invariably held that ignoring, non-
recording, or non-consideration of the submissions, made by the
parties would amount to error apparent on the face of the record,
and the same needs to be rectified by the adjudicating authority.
(D) Thus, in view of the above submissions, the abovementioned legal
provision of Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, and various judicial
pronouncements, cited by the Appellant in favour of their submis-
sions, we are convinced that the impugned AAAR Order dated
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  140