The question raised in the instant case is about the rectification of invoices, filing of returns and refunds of amended invoices. Hence, the question raised before this authority is purely procedural and not covered under any of the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. And thus, the Advance Ruling Authority cannot comment upon the question put forth before them.
Advance Ruling— Section 97 of CGST Act— In the instant case, applicant is providing Engineering /Works contract services in respect of Construction of Fuel pumps, Gas line Installation & Distributions, Installation of Telecom Tower and Prepare Retail outlets for companies.
Question raised before this authority is as follows—
(i) Can the service receiver take GST credit if the service provider has filed GSTR-1 within the time limit of section 39, but he has amended only invoice number after time limit provided under section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017?
(ii) Is the above ITC restricted in section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017?
(iii) If the Service receiver can not avail ITC on these invoices, then can we get refund of the tax paid on these from the government or issue credit notes against these amended invoices to the service receiver and claim the credit back?
The Applicant stated that their case is covered under the Section 97 (2) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017 but we find that the question raised about the rectification of invoices, filing of returns and refunds of amended invoices. The procedure to prepare invoices and for filing of returns is mentioned in the Section 31 and section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further in respect of refund of ITC, the circumstances under which the refund is to be claimed has been mentioned under the provision of Section 54/55 of CGST Act, 1944. Hence, we find that the question raised before this authority is purely a procedural and not covered under any of the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.
This Authority is of the view that based on the detailed reading and understanding of Section 97 of the CGST Act, an application for Advance Ruling can only be made to determine the "admissibility of input tax credit" on any goods or services or both. Therefore, no application can be made to admissibility of Input tax credit on the procedural issue.
Held that— this authority is of opinion that the current application is not Covered within the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act and thus, the Advance Ruling Authority cannot comment upon the question put forth before them under the said provisions.
The question raised in the instant case is about the rectification of invoices, filing of returns and refunds of amended invoices. Hence, the question raised before this authority is purely procedural and not covered under any of the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. And thus, the Advance Ruling Authority cannot comment upon the question put forth before them.
Advance Ruling— Section 97 of CGST Act— In the instant case, applicant is providing Engineering /Works contract services in respect of Construction of Fuel pumps, Gas line Installation & Distributions, Installation of Telecom Tower and Prepare Retail outlets for companies.
Question raised before this authority is as follows—
(i) Can the service receiver take GST credit if the service provider has filed GSTR-1 within the time limit of section 39, but he has amended only invoice number after time limit provided under section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017?
(ii) Is the above ITC restricted in section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017?
(iii) If the Service receiver can not avail ITC on these invoices, then can we get refund of the tax paid on these from the government or issue credit notes against these amended invoices to the service receiver and claim the credit back?
The Applicant stated that their case is covered under the Section 97 (2) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017 but we find that the question raised about the rectification of invoices, filing of returns and refunds of amended invoices. The procedure to prepare invoices and for filing of returns is mentioned in the Section 31 and section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further in respect of refund of ITC, the circumstances under which the refund is to be claimed has been mentioned under the provision of Section 54/55 of CGST Act, 1944. Hence, we find that the question raised before this authority is purely a procedural and not covered under any of the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.
This Authority is of the view that based on the detailed reading and understanding of Section 97 of the CGST Act, an application for Advance Ruling can only be made to determine the "admissibility of input tax credit" on any goods or services or both. Therefore, no application can be made to admissibility of Input tax credit on the procedural issue.
Held that— this authority is of opinion that the current application is not Covered within the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act and thus, the Advance Ruling Authority cannot comment upon the question put forth before them under the said provisions.