Anmol Industries Limited And Anr vs. The West Bengal Authority For Advance Rulin, Goods And Services Tax And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The appellants, Anmol Industries Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 9, 2023, passed by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The AAR rejected their application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the appellants lacked locus standi. The learned Single Bench of the High Court relegated the appellants to the appellate authority. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an intra-Court appeal. The AAR's order was based on its interpretation that the appellants, as recipients of services, were not entitled to file an application for advance ruling.
Held
The Court held that the appellants, being registered persons under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, clearly fall within the definition of 'applicant' as defined in Section 95(c) of the Act. Section 95(c) defines an applicant as 'any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act', which is a wide definition. The Court found that the application filed by the appellants, seeking a ruling on the applicability of exemption notification no. 12/2017-CGST (Rate), fell under Section 97(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the AAR had the jurisdiction to consider the application on merits rather than rejecting it on the ground of lack of locus standi. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited & anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. The appeal was allowed, the order of the writ petition was set aside, and consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The order of the AAR dated February 9, 2023, was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AAR for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellants, being registered persons under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, have the locus standi to file an application for an advance ruling under Section 97 of the Act, considering the definition of 'applicant' in Section 95(c). Appellants' arguments: The appellants contended that they are registered under the Act and therefore fall within the definition of 'applicant' as defined in Section 95(c) of the Act, which states an applicant means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration. They argued that their application, seeking a ruling on the applicability of exemption notification no. 12/2017-CGST (Rate), should have been considered on merits by the AAR. They relied on the judgment in M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited & anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. Revenue's arguments: The State argued, through the AAR's order, that the appellants, as recipients of services, did not have the locus standi to file the application.
Sections Cited
Section 95(c), Section 97, Section 97(1), Section 97(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, ACJ.)
This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioners is directed against the order dated 5th April, 2023 in W.P.A. 6251 of 2023. The appellants filed the writ petition challenging an order passed by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods and Services Tax (for short, “AAR”) dated 9th February, 2023, by which the application filed by the appellants for an advance ruling was rejected on the ground the appellants have no locus standi to file such an application. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order has relegated the appellants to the appellate authority under the Act to agitate the correctness of the order passed by the AAR. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
We have heard Mr. Ankit Kanodia, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. T. M. Siddique, learned Government counsel representing the State.
The AAR in the order impugned in the writ petition has made a slight attempt to go into the aspect as to who is the applicant before the AAR seeking an advance ruling and concluded that the appellants being recipients of service is not entitled to maintain an application before the AAR. Under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (for brevity, “the Act”), in Section 95(c) the term 2
“applicant” has been defined to mean any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act. Thus, in our view, the said term has been defined in the most widest possible manner to include any person registered or desirous of obtaining a registration under the Act. Undoubtedly, the appellants are registered under the provisions of the Act. Section 97 of the Act deals with application for advance ruling. Sub-Section (1) states that an applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling under the relevant chapter may make an application in such form and manner accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the ruling is sought. Sub-Section (2) deals with the question on which advance ruling can be sought for under the Act. The application filed by the appellants would fall under clause (b), Section 97(2) as the appellants seek for a ruling as regards applicability of an exemption notification no.12/2017- CGST (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017. 4. If that be the case, it will be well within the juri iction of the AAR to consider the application on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of lack of locus standi.
As pointed out, the appellants clearly fall within the definition of “applicant” as defined under Section 95(c) of 3
the Act, therefore, we are of the view that the application filed by the appellants before the AAR has to decided on merits.
In the case of M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited & anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. in M.A.T. No.2027 of 2022 dated 5th January, 2023, this Court had taken note of Section 95(c) and held that the Act defines “applicant” to mean any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under the Act and in the said case, the appellants being registered dealers under the provisions of the Act would fall within the definition of “applicant” as defined under Section 95( c) of the Act, though the appellants therein were not parties to the proceedings before the AAR.
For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed along with the connected application and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the AAR dated 9th February, 2023 is set aside and the mater is remanded back to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling to decide the application on merits and in accordance with law.
We make it clear that this direction has been issued considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
There shall be no order as to costs. 4
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
( T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
PALLAB/KS(AR.C) 5
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.