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 applicant was called upon to appear before this Authority but neither the applicant appeared before the Authority nor did it seek any adjournment. The applicant cannot be granted any further opportunity of hearing. Hence, the application of Advance Ruling is rejected under Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act

Classification of goods— In the instant case, applicant is engaged in manufacturing of foot mats and is registered under GST Act. The applicant had filed application for seeking advance ruling on 04.12.2019 and had sought ruling on the following issues:- a. To clarify the classification of foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of Carpets falling under Chapter 57. b. To clarify the classification of foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of PVC Plastic falling under Chapter 39. c. To clarify the classification of foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of top layer of carpets falling under Chapter 56 and lower layer of PVC Plastic falling under Chapter 39. Held that— In order to decide the admissibility of the application, the applicant was called upon to appear before this Authority on 25.02.2020 vide memo no. 18 dated 17.02.2020, but neither the applicant appeared before the Authority nor did it seek any adjournment. Since, the Authority for Advance Ruling is bound to pronounce ruling within 90 days of the receipt of application as per Section 98(6) of the CGST/HGST Act. The applicant cannot be granted any further opportunity of hearing. Hence, the application of Advance Ruling is rejected under Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act