Page 7 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] INDEX - 27th August, 2020 v

SUBJECT INDEX
[CASE LAW : GST & SERVICE TAX]
Acknowledgement of refund application not given within time nor
deficiency memo issued, interest admissible for belated refund - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 385
Advance Ruling, binding nature thereof - See under PRECEDENT ........ 459
Advance ruling application 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
from Gujarat, AAR Maharashtra has no territorial jurisdiction to
pronounce ruling as AAR is constituted State-wise - Notification issued
by State of Maharashtra is applicable only within State for supplies from
Maharashtra - Application not maintainable - Sections 95 and 96 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 95 and 96 of
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  7