Primetals Technologies INDIA Private Limited Through Authorised Signatory Mr Monojit Dey vs. Jharkhand Authority For Advance Ruling Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court noted that the Advance Ruling Authority, now constituted by designation, had started functioning. The respondents assured that the petitioner's application was likely to be decided within two months. Considering these submissions, the Court found it desirable that the application be disposed of expeditiously. The Court directed the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. The writ application was disposed of with this direction. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Advance Ruling application itself, but rather on the procedural delay in its disposal.

Facts

The petitioner, Primemetals Technologies India Private Limited, filed an application for Advance Ruling on June 21, 2021, bearing ARN No. AD200621000661Y. The application remained undecided for approximately one year and nine months before the Advance Ruling Authority constituted under Section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the corresponding JGST Act, 2017. The petitioner approached the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi through a writ petition, seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their application. The respondents, including the Jharkhand Authority for Advance Ruling, the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, informed the court that the Advance Ruling Authority had been duly notified and had started functioning. They assured that the petitioner's application was likely to be decided within two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Advance Ruling Authority, constituted under Section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the corresponding JGST Act, 2017, has failed to discharge its statutory duty by not deciding the application for Advance Ruling filed by the petitioner within a reasonable period? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their application for Advance Ruling, filed on June 21, 2021, had been pending for an inordinate period of about one year and nine months without any decision. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal, preferably within a shorter timeframe than initially indicated by the respondents. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their learned counsel, submitted that the Advance Ruling Authority had been duly notified by designation and had commenced functioning. They assured the Court that the petitioner's application was likely to be decided within a period of two months.