AAR Rejects Ruling on E-Way Bill Queries as Non-Maintainable Under GST Law:

AAR Rejects Ruling on E-Way Bill Queries as Non-Maintainable Under GST Law

AAR declines ruling, holds E-way bill procedural issues outside Section 97(2) scope

Procedural E-way Bill Queries Held Non-maintainable Under GST Advance Ruling

authorMeetu KumaridateMar 26, 2026
Last update on Mar 26, 2026
AAR Rejects Ruling on E-Way Bill Queries as Non-Maintainable Under GST Law

M/s. Grayeye IT Systems Pvt. Ltd., engaged in supply and installation of IT hardware and system integration services, approached the Authority seeking clarity on various practical issues relating to E-way bill generation. The queries primarily revolved around “bill-to ship-to” transactions, inter-state supplies without physical movement through the applicant’s state, incorrect tax charging by vendors, and procedural aspects like generation of E-way bills after 180/365 days and movement of goods under delivery challans before invoicing.

ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment as Section 148 Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period

The applicant explained that in many cases, goods move directly from suppliers located in one state to customers in another state, while invoicing is done from Chennai. In some cases, invoices are raised only after installation, with goods moving initially under delivery challans. The applicant sought guidance on correct E-way bill procedures and applicability in such scenarios.

Issue Before Court: Whether questions relating to E-way bill generation, validity, and procedural compliance fall within the scope of advance ruling under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment as Section 148 Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period
Tribunal Decided: The Authority declined to admit the application and rejected it at the threshold. It held that the queries raised by the applicant were purely procedural in nature and related to E-way bill generation and compliance, which are governed by the CGST Rules and not covered under the specific questions permitted under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.

It was observed that advance rulings can only be sought on limited issues such as classification, applicability of notifications, time and value of supply, ITC admissibility, tax liability, registration requirement, or whether an activity amounts to supply. Since E-way bill procedures do not fall within any of these categories, the application was held to be non-maintainable. Accordingly, the application was rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

LinkedIn

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2174
Up Next

Loading suggestions…