Page 85 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. 411
vance ruling is sought and the question/s shall be in respect of any of the specific
categories mentioned under clauses (a) to (g) of the said section. Section 98 of the
CGST Act is related to procedure to be followed by the Advance Ruling Authori-
ty, on receipt of an application and after giving an opportunity to the applicant,
the Advance Ruling Authority may either admit or reject the application. After
admission, an order is required to be passed and copies of the same is to be pro-
vided to the applicant. As per Section 103 the advance ruling pronounced by the
Authority under this Chapter shall be binding only on the applicant who had
sought the ruling, and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in re-
spect of the applicant.
5.8.4 From the above-mentioned provisions, it is seen that this authori-
ty is constituted by the Government of the State of Maharashtra to decide on
matters or questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97, in relation to the
supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be under-
taken by the applicant registered in Maharashtra. Every other State in this coun-
try has the power to constitute such type of authority to provide the rulings per-
taining to the respective States under the GST Act. Thus, we find that there are
jurisdictional restrictions on the powers of this authority. Further, rulings given
by this authority is binding to the applicant (registered in Maharashtra and un-
dertaking or proposing to undertake supplies from Maharashtra) or on the con-
cerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. However, in
the subject case the impugned supply is/will be happening from Gujarat for
which the concerned/jurisdictional officer in Gujarat will assess this transaction.
All formalities pertaining to GST will be done from Gujarat only.
5.8.5 Considering the provisions of the Chapter XVII of the GST Act,
this authority can only pass rulings on supplies being undertaken or proposed to
be undertaken from Maharashtra State only. Therefore, this authority has no ju-
risdiction to entertain the subject application and to interfere in such activity of
’supply of goods’, being carried out from another State.
5.9 Applicant has also cited an Order passed by the Authority of Ad-
vance Ruling - Kerala, in case of M/s. Saraswathi Metal Industries, Alappuzha in
support.
5.9.1 In this connection we find that M/s. Saraswathi Metal Industries,
which has undertaken the supply, is situated in Alappuzha, Kerala State and the
said order has been passed by the Kerala State Advance Ruling Authority. In the
subject case, the application is made in Maharashtra in respect of supply under-
taken from Gujarat, by a Gujarat registered unit.
5.10 The applicant has contended that the statute does not give any dis-
cretionary powers or authority to refuse to give ruling. The GST Act very clearly
mandates that this authority has to give a ruling to any applicant, registered in
Maharashtra and undertaking or proposing to undertake supply of
goods/services from the State. In this case there is no supply being effected or
proposed to be effected from Maharashtra and therefore the applicant has no
locus standi to make an application at all. It is not the case that this authority is
refusing to give a ruling to a person who is entitled to make an advance ruling
application.
5.11 Applicant has submitted that jurisdiction of the functionaries un-
der the Act cannot be linked to the place of production of goods or services or
movement of goods since GST is a Destination based tax (consumption tax). Ap-

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  85