Application not maintainable as no locus standi substantiated by applicant

Application not maintainable as no locus standi substantiated by applicant M/s. Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. (GRIMCO) procures…

Application not maintainable as no locus standi substantiated by applicant
M/s. Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. (GRIMCO) procures different types of toolkits and supplies to various D.I.C. offices for distribution to beneficiaries of different schemes of Govt. of Gujarat. GRIMCO floated an e-tender for purchasing tailoring kits consisting of 1 set of sewing machines, 1 set of overlock machines, and 1 PVC moulded stool. The supplier had to file the online financial bid. After submitting that the GST rate on a sewing machine was 12% and on PVC moulded stool was 18%, GRIMCO sought an opinion on the GST rate on the kit. The authority referred to Section 103(1) CGST Act, which stipulates that Advance Ruling shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer/ jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. Also, as per Section 95(a) CGST Act, the decision is provided by the advance ruling on the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In the instant case as GRIMCO had not substantiated its locus standi to file said application as per section 95(a) CGST Act. It was held that GRIMCO’s supplier is not bound by the Ruling as per section 103(1) CGST Act. Therefore, the application was rejected as it was non-maintainable under Section 95(a) CGST Act.About Author

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
2166My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condones 648-Day Delay After Assessee Lost Family During COVID, Restores AppealPremium
- ITAT Quashes Rs 2 Crore Penalty as Time-Barred; Limitation Starts from AO’s Reference, Not Show-Cause NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








