M/s GIRI TRANSPORT COMPANY v. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Rajasthan
Arun Monga, Justice & Sunil Beniwal, Justice
M/s GIRI TRANSPORT COMPANY
v.
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING & ORS.
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 13071/2024 dated 20.05.2026
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 97, 98 100 & 101
Rule Number : Rule 106, 107 & 107A
Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017
Decision : In favour of revenue
Advance ruling – Appeal against AAR ruling – Preliminary objections – Whether 90-day period under Section 101(2) mandatory or directory – Locus of CGST authority as concerned officer – Estoppel against department – FOC diesel – Value of GTA services – AAR held value of diesel supplied free of cost by service recipient not includable in taxable value of GTA services – Department filed appeals beyond prescribed period – Jurisdictional officer supported petitioner before AAR but appealed thereafter – Preliminary objections raised on grounds of expiry of 90-day period under Section 101(2), limitation under Section 100(2), lack of locus of CGST authority, estoppel and manual filing – Appellate Authority rejected all objections – Court found Section 101(2) prescribes directory and not mandatory timeline as no penal consequence prescribed for non-compliance and mandatory construction would extinguish right of appeal – Limitation to be reckoned from actual receipt of ruling and not portal upload date – Condonation of delay by Appellate Authority valid exercise of statutory discretion – Concerned officer and jurisdictional officer are distinct authorities under Sections 98 & 100 and both independently entitled to appeal regardless of prior participation – No estoppel against State in taxation matters and subordinate officer’s stand without higher authority approval not binding on department – Rule 107A expressly saves manual filing – All preliminary objections rightly rejected – Held: Writ petition dismissed.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Wilson Joy
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member