Page 10 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

viii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :
— Eleventh Schedule - See under PURE SERVICES ................. 430
— Twelfth Schedule - See under PURE SERVICES ................. 430
— Article 226 - See under NATURAL JUSTICE ................... 388
— See also under SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE
RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019 .................... 393
— Article 243G - See under PURE SERVICES .................... 430
— Article 243W - See under PURE SERVICES .................... 430
CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1975 :
Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff Item
— 2303 - See under ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY ............... 439
— See also under SHATAMRUT CHYAVAN ............... 439
— 2309 90 10 - See under ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY ........... 439
— See also under SHATAMRUT CHYAVAN ............... 439
Deficiency memo not being issued in RFD-03 within timeline of fifteen days,
refund application presumed to be complete in all respects - See under
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............................ 385
DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 :
— Section 54 - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 385
DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES, 2017 :
— Rule 89(2) - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 385
— Rule 89(3) - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 385
— Rule 89(4) - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 385
Discretionary power or authority of AAR to refuse giving ruling - See under
ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY ........................ 403
Disputed Tax Amount payable under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
Resolution) Scheme, 2019, quantification of - See under SABKA
VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019 ........ 393
Error apparent in Advance Ruling - Rectification thereof - Classification of
goods “Preparation of a kind used in Animal Feeding - Bio Processed
Meal” - Earlier Ruling dated 2-1-2020 holding that impugned product is
not classifiable under Heading 2309 of GST Tariff with NIL duty,
suffering from factual errors apparent on face of it inasmuch as
submissions made in amended application were not considered while
pronouncing ruling based on original application - Applicant had
obtained new registration for manufacture of said product in a new
factory whereas earlier Ruling referred only to existing unit where
admittedly Soya Products for human consumption are manufactured - It
was categorially stated by applicant in amended application that raw
material for manufacturing of said product would be having protein
content less than 52% and is fit for animal feed only not for human
consumption, that in new factory no soya products would be
manufactured and that various AAR rulings have classified said product
under Heading 2309 ibid - All these aspects were not considered - In
view of above, application for rectification of error admitted - Section 102
of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Madhya Pradesh Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Vippy Industries Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - M.P.) .... 446
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  10