M/s POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Rajasthan
Avneesh Jhingan, Justice & Ashutosh Kumar, Justice
M/s POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 11370/2021 dated 18.07.2024
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 22, 24, 97, 98, 99, 100 & 101C
Decision : In favour of assessee
Eligibility for Advance Ruling – Restriction in Sections 95 and 97 – Scope of Advance Rulings – Challenge to AAR order – Writ petition filed to challenge order of Rajasthan AAR, which dismissed the petitioner’s application for an advance ruling – Petitioner engages contractors who transport goods and raise invoices for transportation – Issue for Advance Rulings was whether transportation of goods is exempt under Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 12/2007 Central Tax (Rate) – AAR dismissed the application, citing non-maintainability since the petitioner was not the supplier – It was argued that the GST Act does not restrict advance ruling applications to suppliers only – Respondents argued that the order is appealable – Only suppliers or proposed suppliers can seek an advance ruling. Petitioner is not a supplier – Held that – The Court observed that definition of applicant includes anyone registered or required to register under the GST Act, which covers the petitioner – Definition of ‘advance ruling’ should be interpreted contextually, considering the petitioner’s liability under the reverse charge mechanism – Cited Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, wherein held that Statutory definitions must be read in context; flexibility in interpretation is necessary where definitions start with “unless the context otherwise requires” – Petitioner, liable to pay tax under reverse charge, is deemed a supplier and should be able to seek an advance ruling – Section 100 provides for appeals against rulings under Section 98(4), not rejections under Section 98(2) – As the petitioner’s application was rejected under Section 98(2), the order is not appealable – AAR order set aside, remitted back to AAR for fresh consideration of the application under Section 98(4).
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Narendra Singhvi with Priyamvada Joshi
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