• Kandivali West Mumbai 400067, India
  • 022 39167251
  • support@email.com
January 25, 2021

Advance Ruling application rejected for non-appearance of applicant

by CA Shivam Jaiswal in GST

Advance Ruling application rejected for non-appearance of applicant

In order to decide the admissibility of the application, the applicant was called upon to appear before this Authority on 09.01.2020 vide memo no. 02 dated 06.01.2020, but none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Thereafter, notice of appearance was sent for 28.01.2020 vide memo no. 13 dated 17.01.2020. The applicant failed to appear on the said date also.

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 instant application for Advance Ruling is rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Full text of order of authority of advance ruling, Haryana

1. Brief Facts:

1.1 The applicant M/s Sachdeva College Ltd. is a Limited Company incorporated under the companies Act having its Regd. Office at 29, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

1.2 It is providing Training at its place of business at 29, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 in terms of Letter No. T-1/2017/25229 and T-1/2017/25236 dated 07.11.2017 to the selected candidates sponsored by Directorate of Welfare of Schedule Caste and Backward Classes Department, Haryana SCO, 42-44, Sector-17A, Chandigarh.

2. Statement of Relevant facts made by the applicant:

2.1 The applicant is engaged in the field of providing education “Education” is not defined under the CGST Act, but as per Apex Court decision in Loka Shiksha Trust Vs. CIT, Education is a process of training and developing knowledge, skill and character of student by normal schooling.

2.2 In view of above submissions, it is submitted that an agreement for HARYANA/ providing above training was also entered vide copy attested by Notary / dated 21st Nov., 2017 duly sent by Applicant. In terms of above agreements, training fee was received from the Directorate of Welfare of Schedule Caste and Backward Classes Department, Haryana SCO, 42- 44, Sector-17A, Chandigarh and duly reflected in fee structure detail.

3. Applicant’s Question:

3 1 To determine the liability to pay GST/IGST tax on training to students at behest of Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes Department, Haryana by applicant under a training programme for which total expenditure is borne by State Government of Haryana which implement three types of scheme i.e. State Scheme, sharing basis, Centrally sponsored scheme especially in view of Entry No. 72 of the Haryana Government Excise & Taxation Department Notification No. 47/ST-2 Dated 30.06.2017 and whether this Entry grants exemption of GST on the Training of Students by Petitioner?

3.2 Whether the Applicant is liable to be registered under the State of Haryana under HGST/CGST in view of facts and circumstances of present case?

4. Discussion:

4.1 In order to decide the admissibility of the application, the applicant was called upon to appear before this Authority on 09.01.2020 vide memo no. 02 dated 06.01.2020, but none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Thereafter, notice of appearance was sent for 28.01.2020 vide memo no. 13 dated 17.01.2020. The applicant failed to appear on the said date also.

4.2 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 instant application for Advance Ruling is rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to faceless complainces