Page 165 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 483
- Work already undertaken and completed during Service Tax regime
and activities undertaken by assessee does not pertain to supply of goods
or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by it -
Questions not maintainable before Advance Authority - Consequently
related questions in this regard also not maintainable - Sections 95 and
142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Woodkraft India
Limited (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) .............................. 110
Advance Ruling application - Maintainability of - Applicant not undertaken
the supply in the subject case, and also not proposing to undertake the
supply but is a recipient of services from a person situated abroad -
Accordingly, application cannot be admitted - Section 95 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Futuredent (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) ..... 28
— with wrong authority - Transfer to concerned State Authority - Refund of
fee - Applicant pleading that in case his application is not maintainable
on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, it should either be transferred to
concerned State Authority instead of dismissal or returned to him with
refund of fee - This plea not acceptable - Under GST law, AAR has
mandate of either admitting application and deciding on it or reject it ab
initio as non-maintainable - There being jurisdictional restrictions as well
as fact that fee is payable under respective SGST laws, application cannot
be transferred to any other authority - There is no provisions under GST
law either to transfer application to another AAR or return with refund
of fee - Sections 95 and 96 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 -
Sections 95 and 96 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In
Re : Apar Industries Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) ....................... 403
Advance Ruling Authority - Jurisdiction - Waste of Sugar Manufacture -
Scope of notification entry - Applicant seeking to know as to whether the
goods falling under Tariff Item 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 can
be treated as ‘waste of sugar manufacture, whether or not in the form of
pellets under Heading 2303’ ibid - This question is of general in nature
and not connected with product being manufacture or proposed to be
manufactured - Accordingly, it is beyond jurisdiction of AAR and hence
not answered - Section 97(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017/Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Vivek V.
Ratnaparkhi (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) ............................ 439
— Powers of - Applicant also pleading that AAR has no discretionary power
or authority to refuse giving ruling - This plea is incorrect in this case - It
is not that this authority is not giving ruling in respect of an applicant
who is entitled to obtain ruling from AAR of Maharashtra State - Clearly
applicant has no locus standi to make application before AAR
Maharashtra as supply is from Gujarat - Sections 95 and 96 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 95 and 96 of Maharashtra
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Apar Industries Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST -
Mah.) ......................................... 403
— Territorial jurisdiction - Applicant is registered in State of Maharashtra
also where its Head Office is located, it is also registered in other States -
In this case, while purchase order is name of HO, supply is to be made
from Gujarat Factory where goods would be manufactured - Invoice and
E-way Bill are to be issued from factory and requisite return is also to be
filed before GST Authorities in Gujarat - Since supply is being effected
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  165