Advance Ruling Authority Dismisses Rectification Plea for Lack of Apparent Error

The applicant, M/s. Kailash Vahn Private Limited filed the original application before the Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) to seek an advance ruling on the following questions:

“1) Whether Applicant can consider the said body building activity as “job work activity and regard it as “Supply of Services” falling under SAC Code – 998881 “Motor vehicle and trailer manufacturing services “(as per Notification No. 11/2017-CT(Rate), dated 28.6.2017 Sl. No.535)

2) If it is regarded as “job work activity” and “Supply of Services, whether the correct applicable rate of GST, will be at 18% (9 +9) as applicable under Sl. No.26 (ic) or will it be 18% (9+9) as applicable under Sl. No.26 (iv).

3) Or will the activity of body building carried out on chassis belonging to and Supplied by Principal is to be regarded as Supply of goods falling under 8707 as “Bodies (including cabs), for the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705″. attracting 28% (CGST @ 14% + SGST @14%) as per Sl. No. 169 of Schedule IV to the Notification No. 1/2017-CT (R)dt.28.06.2017.”

The Tamil Nadu AAR gave the ruling as follows:

• The activity of the applicant is a supply of service and it is classified under SAC 998881. However, only the supply of the activity of body building on chassis owned by GST registrered Customer can be treated as job work.
• If the chassis is given by the GST registered person or by GST unregistered person, the tax rate would be 9% under the CGST Act, 2017 and 9% under the SGST Act, 2017.

However, the applicant filed a rectification Request dated 17.10.2024 to correct the mistake under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant suggests a small correction in the Ruling No. 1, saying that “However, only the supply of the activity of body building on chassis owned by GST registered customer is Job work covered by Sl. No. 26(ic). The supply of services activity of body building on chassis owned by unregistered customer is covered by Sl. No. 26(iv) as per classification under heading 998881 read with “Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017“.

The AAR observed that the rectification of an advance ruling is needed when there is an error apparent on the face of the record under section 102 of the Act. However, in the present case, the authority noted that the suggestion given by the applicant seems unnecessary.

Accordingly, the authority rejected the rectification application filed by the applicant, as there is no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record.