M/S Pernod Ricard PVT. LTD. vs. Authority For Advance Ruling GST

Held

The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in deciding its advance ruling application. It noted the statutory period prescribed under Section 98(6) of the CGST Act for deciding such applications. The Court also considered the Revenue's submission that the Authority is non-functional due to an incomplete quorum, with the nomination of a CBIC member pending. In light of these circumstances, the Court disposed of the petition by directing that the Petitioner's application be decided expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date the quorum of the Advance Ruling Authority is complete and it becomes functional. Furthermore, considering that the Authority has not been conducting hearings since November 2020, the Court requested the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to prioritize the processing of the nomination received from the CBIC. The registry was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the office of the Lieutenant Governor, and the counsel for the Revenue was also instructed to communicate the order.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Pernod Ricard Pvt. Ltd., filed an application for advance ruling before the Authority for Advance Ruling (GST) on June 15, 2018, concerning its proposed business. The Petitioner is aggrieved because the Authority has not decided its application for over two and a half years, despite multiple reminders. The Petitioner contends that this delay prejudices its ability to commence its proposed business of red and white de-alcoholised wines, as clarity on tax applicability is essential for planning. The Authority's counsel stated that the Advance Ruling Authority of Delhi is not functioning due to an incomplete quorum, as one member's nomination by the CBIC is still awaited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Authority for Advance Ruling (GST) has failed to decide the Petitioner's application within the statutory period prescribed under Section 98(6) of the CGST Act, thereby causing prejudice to the Petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that Section 98(6) of the CGST Act mandates that an application for advance ruling must be decided within ninety days of its receipt. The Petitioner highlighted that more than 2.5 years have passed since its application was filed on June 15, 2018, and despite numerous requests, no decision has been made, preventing them from starting their proposed business. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the Advance Ruling Authority of Delhi is currently non-functional due to a lack of quorum. Specifically, one member, to be nominated by the CBIC, has not yet been notified, which is pending before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.