Page 78 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

404 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
Advance ruling application with wrong authority - Transfer to con-
cerned 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. [paras 5.17, 5.18]
Application rejected
CASES CITED
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 416 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................... [Para 5.17.1]
Commissioner v. Palvi Power Tech Sales Pvt. Ltd.
— 2014 (299) E.L.T. 180 (Guj.) — Relied on .......................................................................... [Para 5.17.2]
Dharsak V.P. — 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 426 (A.A.R. - GST) — Referred ............................... [Paras 2.7, 5.9, 5.9.1]
India Pistons Limited v. Assistant Collector — 1987 (27) E.L.T. 651 (Mad.) — Relied on ...... [Para 5.17.2]
Pankajakshi v. Chandrika — 2017 (345) E.L.T. 438 (S.C.) — Relied on ...................................... [Para 5.17.1]
Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company — AIR 1992 SC 1514 — Referred ...... [Para 2.9.14]
Subhash Chandra Talwar v. T. Choithram — Order dated 25-10-2019
of Supreme Court — Referred ................................................................................................ [Para 2.9.17]
[Order]. - Proceedings : The present application has been filed under Sec-
tion 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and
MGST Act” respectively] by M/s. Apar Industries Limited, the applicant, seeking
an advance ruling in respect of the following questions.
(1) When goods i.e. Marine/Pressure Tight Cables/Non-Pressure Tight
Cables, falling under Chapter 8544 are manufactured & designed
especially for use for Defence Ministry in their Warship as Parts of
Warship, what will be the Determination of Tax Liability on such
supply?
(2) Whether GST @ 5% is applicable in terms Sr. No. 252 of Schedule-I
of the Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-
2017?
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST
Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, un-
less a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the
CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the MGST
Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of this Advance Ruling,
the expression ‘GST Act’ would mean CGST Act and MGST Act.
2. Facts and contention - As per the Applicant
The submissions made by the applicant are as under :-
2.1 Apar Industries Ltd., the applicant, falling within the jurisdiction of
Maharashtra State is a registered manufacturer and supplier of various types &
grades of cables falling under Chapter Heading No. 8544 of Customs/GST Tariff.
2.2 Notification No. 1/2017-I.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, classifies and
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  78