Since the starting of GST Laws, trade and industry have confronted diverse issues identifying with uploading of returns, benefiting legacy Cenvat credit under TRAN-1 form, different confusions in regards to the generation of e-way bills and numerous other such small issues.

At the point when the Government presented the Advance Ruling Authority under GST, it sought to give a lot more extensive coverage when contrasted with the prior Excise and Service Tax Regime, so as to give an early resolution of the potential tax dispute originating from the trade and industry. First time for any Tax Legislation, an intrigue system was given against the requests gone by the Advance Ruling Authority which was missing under the previous laws and also under the current Income Tax Act.

This appreciated step by the Govt was met with overwhelming help from the trade and industry and therefore, a large number of applications were filed before the Advance Ruling Authority looking for explanation on a variety of tax issues. Shockingly, the Advance Ruling Authorities of different states had not just come up with conflicting decisions on a similar subject yet in addition the majority of the decisions were ruled for the favour of revenue only. Further, the applicants rarely got any help before the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling too.

Probably, the constitution of this discussion, which comprises just of revenue officials and not having a free judicial part is probably the most compelling motivation for this result. Henceforth, rather than getting relief, the trade and industry began confronting this one of a kind challenge.

This circumstance was additionally worsened by the ongoing order passed by the Bombay High Court on account of JSW Energy Limited wherein it has been held that no appeal can be filed against an order of the Appellate Authority of Advance Rulings on “merits” since no appeal has been given under the GST Act. Without going into the value of this judgment, which appears to have overlooked the well-settled proposition of law that a writ petition is surely viable under the steady gaze of the High Court, the request of the High Court has absolutely made chaos in the Industry.

Seeing this pattern, solid perception in the Trade and Industry is getting work with respect to why one ought to try and approach the Advance Ruling Authority who is probably going to choose the issue against the assessee and when essentially there is no appeal component against the said order. Though if the assessee selects the course of the adjudication, the entryways of the council just as the courts would dependably be available to look for help. Given this, it gives the idea that the entire target of making this forum to give quick goals of issues, rather than experiencing the long-drawn litigation route, is getting crushed.

Thus, it was a real wish and request of the industry that the Government should acquire some change the structure and offer life to this forum. Valuing the need of the industry, the recently chosen government in this Budget attempted to address this issue by presenting the National Appellate Tribunal for Advance Ruling (NATAR) under Section 101A of the CGST Act, 2017. The proposed NATAR will be directed upon by a resigned Judge of the Supreme Court or any High Court and would be joined by two technical individuals representing both the central and the state government.

The composition of the NATAR seems to solve the issue of departmental bias, by presenting a judicial member and furthermore presenting a choice of offer against orders of the Appellate Authority which was already missing under the GST Laws. However, the wording of proposed Section 101B of CGST Act recommends that an appeal before NATAR would lie just in cases where the views taken either by the individuals from Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling established in a similar state or in different states are conflicting.

Though this new proposal by the Government seems to give help in certain perspectives for example at the point when there are opposing perspectives from both of the individuals from a similar Bench or among the co-ordinate Benches of different states. However, there is no help given against the order of the AAAR if the ruling goes against the assessee. So, the NATAR would have a constrained utility and this takes the taxpayer back to square one.

According to the pattern of the Advance Authority Rulings up to this point, it has been seen that two co-ordinate seats of the Appellate Authority once in a while contrast in their perspectives with regards to a solitary issue. Additionally, a circumstance wherein the individuals from a similar seat of the Appellate Authority (who are both departmental officials) contrast in their conclusions, is likewise uncommon. In this manner, the NATAR will be restricted to tending to uncommon circumstances wherein clashing perspectives have been taken by at least two Appellate Authorities (of various states) or two individuals from the equivalent Appellate Authority Bench. Along these lines, in spite of the presentation of NATAR, adequately there is still no investigative gathering accessible to the assessee having an unfriendly request of the AAAR.

This issue may be fathomed if the NATAR is given more extensive forces to mediate on “any” request gone by the Appellate Authority. Consequently while passing the Bill, the Government should roll out appropriate improvements in the Bill to give the eagerly awaited alleviation to the Industry.

In summation, the presentation of the NATAR by the administration just explains the issue of the assessee superficially. In any case, the main problem of having an effectual redrafting cure against the requests of the AAR still evades the citizens.

For detailed info, contact Certicom Consulting.