Page 81 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 407
basic conditions : (a) registration GSTIN obtained on the GST portal, (b) deposit-
ed fee amount in Electronic Cash Ledger, are weightier, sound grounds and rea-
sons why the Application submitted by the Applicant, needs to be “admitted”
for hearing on merits.
2.9.8 Applicant has submitted that this Authority has the competence,
jurisdiction, powers and Authority to admit the application and give verdict and
has further stated that : The Statutory functionary has to act as per the Statute;
The AAR is a “Tribunal” with trappings of the Court; The principles of Civil pro-
cedure apply and the AAR has no inherent jurisdiction, or discretion.
2.9.9 A plain and simple reading of the relevant provisions of the Ma-
harashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (MGST, Act) makes it clear that the
GST law is complete code in itself for the entire substantive & procedural law
governing the Advance Ruling mechanism including constitution of the AAR,
appointment of persons who will preside over and give verdict, the eligibility of
the Applicant who desires to have Advance Ruling and all relevant procedures
including the appeal provisions.
2.9.10 Applicant, citing a few case laws has submitted that, since the
AAR is a ‘Tribunal established under Section 96 of the MGST Act, it being the crea-
ture of the Statute, it has to function within the four corners of law, and cannot travel
beyond the boundaries earmarked for exercise of its powers, authority, duties
and responsibilities as also the procedure prescribed by the Statute. The AAR
cannot either add any new condition, or any procedural requirement beyond
those specified in Sections 95, 96, 97 or 98 of the MGST Act.
2.9.11 Applicant has further submitted that, as per the provisions of
Section 98(2) of the MGST Act, the only prescription for non-admissibility of the Ap-
plication is that the question or matter raised before the Authority for Advance Ruling is
“either decided or pending in ‘any proceedings’ in the case of the Applicant. Hence, the
ground for non-maintainability of the subject application i.e. “tax invoice”
is/will be issued from a place other than the State of Maharashtra is not accepta-
ble. Applicant states that the AAR does not have any power or authority to add
to or modify the proviso or enlarge the scope of the Advance Ruling provisions
in any manner. The provisions are a legislative edict and either the Applicant
falls within or is outside the Proviso.
2.9.12 The Advance Ruling Authority is a ‘Tribunal’ having trappings
of a Court of law. Broadly, the expression used in various judgments rendered by
various Courts is that an Authority would be a Tribunal if it has the “trappings
of a Court”. In the light of the various legal positions, it is clear that this AAR is a
Tribunal with the trappings of a Civil Court, though not a Court of law. There-
fore, it has a duty to follow the principles analogous to those set out in the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.
2.9.13 The concept of “jurisdiction” in civil matters is well defined in
view of the civil procedure code and long standing practice. “Jurisdiction” gen-
erally means the power or authority of the court of law or Tribunal to hear and
determine a cause or a matter for example, the AAR under the MGST Act cannot
decide on the place of supply and as such cannot decide whether the service is an
‘export service’. In such a situation, the AAR would lack basic “jurisdiction”, as it
cannot give relief asked for.
2.9.14 Citing the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, applicant has submitted that the Explanation to Section 20 states that “A
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  81