Order Rejecting Advance Ruling Application Without Detailed Consideration to be Quashed: HC

Case Details: KBL SPML 25JV v. Authority for Advance Ruling - [2023] 151 taxmann.com 272 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.
  • Veena J. Kamath, Adv. for the Petitioenr.
  • K. Hema Kumar, AGA for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The application for advance ruling under Section 98(2) of CGST ACT, 2017 was rejected on ground that applicant-contractor had filed application after expiry of contractual period. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) while interpreting expression ‘being’ as found in section 97(2)(g) of CGST Act, 2017 opined that phrase ‘being undertaken’ can only refer to an ongoing and continuous supply. Therefore, it was held that application could not be admitted since applicant’s contractual period was expired. The applicant filed writ petition to challenge the rejection order.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the opportunity of hearing as contemplated under section 98(2) could not be an empty formality. The applicant should have been informed that application could be rejected without admission on ground that corresponding contractual period had expired. The applicant must therefore, have appropriate liberty to file additional plea to show cause against such reasoning. Thus, it was held that the authority’s order rejecting application for advance ruling without admitting it for detailed consideration was to be quashed and application was to be restored for consideration.