- The West Bengal AAR rejected the advance ruling application because the same ITC issue was already pending before GST authorities, triggering the bar under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
- The applicant had sought a ruling on ITC eligibility for construction-related inputs and works contract services used for a hotel, restaurant, banquet facilities, and related infrastructure.
- GST enforcement had already begun inspections and proceedings, alleging excess ITC and directing reversal of credit as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d).
- The AAR held that the applicant knew about these proceedings when filing the application, making the request non-maintainable.
- It also noted the applicant wrongly claimed no proceedings were pending, and dismissed the application.
Source: a2ztaxcorp.net
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "India"
- GSTR‑1 Filing – Due Dates, Format, Late Fees, Rules
- GSTR‑3B – Due Dates, Late Fees, Format, Filing Rules
- GSTR‑1A – Fixing GSTR‑1 Mistakes
- GST’s Credit Challenge — Why Input Tax Credit Remains the Biggest Compliance Pressure Point
- Territorial Jurisdiction in GST Matters Determined by the Location of the Adjudicating Authority
