Advance Ruling cannot be made in relation to Rectification of Mistake in GSTR-1

The Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR West Bengal) in the matter of M/s CABCON INDIA LIMITED has ruled out that Advance Ruling cannot be made in relation to Rectification of Mistake in GSTR-1.

The fact of the case as it appears from the submission made by the applicant in FORM GST ARA-01 is that the applicant has made some mistakes while filing FORM GSTR-1 on the common portal for the financial year 2017-18. For example, due to wrong selection of State Code from the drop-down list, the portal has identified an intra-state supply to be an inter-state supply and vice versa. This has resulted in incorrect discharge of output tax liability.

The applicant clarifies that they have accounted actual GST liability in their books of accounts and discharged GST liability correctly through GSTR 3B. It is submitted that such errors have been detected in February 2023 while going through the process of checking of mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B, as information received from GST portal. The applicant expresses its inability to amend those above mentioned mistakes occurred in 2017-2018.

Further, as per sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act, the question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, —

(a) classification of any goods or services or both;

(b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;

(c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;

(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;

(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;

(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;

(g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term.

The question on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant is found not to be covered under any of the aforesaid clauses.

The applicant was allowed an opportunity for personal hearing and the aforesaid observation was brought to the notice of the authorised representative of the applicant in course of hearing. The authorised representative hadn’t put any argument in favour of admissibility of the instant application.

We thus dispose of the application considering the facts of the case and issue raised by the applicant. Based on the facts stated earlier that the question on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant is not covered under any of the clauses under sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act, we are of the view that there may not be any reason to accept the application made by the applicant for pronouncement of ruling. The application, therefore, is rejected.

For Official Ruling Download PDF Given Below: