Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

The subject application is not maintainable as the questions raised by applicant does not fall under the gamut of Section 97(2).

Advance Ruling— In the instant case, the applicant (Acme) has carried out job work of fabrication services on the goods supplied by its GST registered customer for the period FY 17-18 and FY 18-19. Acme submits that it did not charge GST and cleared the goods on job work invoice; while filing GSTR-1 as well as GSTR-3B of respective periods, Acme filed such transactions under exempt supply.

Question on which Advance Ruling sought:

1. For the Job work done during F. Y. 18-19, whether the invoice raised by the applicant considered to be a valid tax invoice as per provisions of GST law?

2. Whether the taxpayer is rightful to recover the tax from principal supplier of goods upon issuing a ‘tax invoice’ as per provision of the law subsequently?

3. In continuation of question 2, whether the recipient can claim ITC?

Questions 1 is not regarding determination of liability to pay tax but pertains to whether the invoice raised by Acme to its customer be considered to be a valid tax invoice. 

Held that— As per Section 95(a), CGST Act, ‘Advance Ruling’ means a decision provided by the Authority to an applicant on matters/ questions specified in Section 97(2), in relation to the supply of goods/ services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In view of the statutory provisions of Section 97(2) CGST Act, We hold that the Questions raised by Acme does not fall under the gamut of said Section 97(2).

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.