The petitioner has filed a petition with the court requesting the respondents to establish an authority for advance ruling, as outlined in Section 96 of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Ordinance, 2017. The petitioner’s main concern is that although the law requires such an authority to be set up within the state, the respondents have failed to do so, preventing the petitioner from seeking advance rulings. Additionally, the petitioner is worried about the lack of clarity on how to submit applications to this yet-to-be-constituted authority. The petitioner highlights that the current tax authority’s portal does not offer a method for filing applications for advance rulings.
The government’s representative, the learned Government Pleader, asserts that the authority for advance ruling has indeed been constituted through S.R.O.No.638 of 2017, dated 21.10.2017.
The petitioner in this case has filed a petition before the court seeking a directive for the respondents to establish an authority for advance rulings as stipulated in Section 96 of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Ordinance, 2017. The petitioner’s concern revolves around the absence of such an authority despite statutory provisions, which impedes their ability to seek advance rulings. Additionally, they express worry regarding the lack of a procedure for filing applications before such an authority, citing the absence of a method on the taxing authority’s portal.
The Government Pleader, representing the respondents, informs the court that the authority for advance rulings has indeed been constituted by S.R.O.No.638 of 2017 dated 21.10.2017. The members of this authority are identified as the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Joint Commissioner (General) State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. Addressing the petitioner’s concerns about filing procedures, it is clarified that until the electronic filing system is established on the portal, assessees will be allowed to submit their applications manually before the authority.
Upon considering the submissions of the Government Pleader, the court finds that the concerns raised by the petitioner have been adequately addressed. Consequently, the writ petition is closed, acknowledging the assurances provided by the Government Pleader regarding the constitution of the authority for advance rulings and the interim manual filing process.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law:
