No Obvious Error: AAR Rejects Mitsubishi’s Application for Rectification of Error of Advance Ruling [Read Order]
AAR Rejects Mitsubishi’s Application for Rectification of Advance Ruling Due to No Obvious Error.
AAR – Error of Advance Ruling – AAR Rejects Mitsubishis – Taxscan
AAR – Error of Advance Ruling – AAR Rejects Mitsubishis – Taxscan
In a recent ruling before Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) the application for rectification of Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd. was rejected due to lack of apparent error in advance ruling.
The Applicant, Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited having a GSTIN filed an application on 14.03.2024 for rectification of mistake (ROM) under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, against suling of the authority vide Advance Ruling No.116/AAR/2023.
The counsel for the appellant Advocate Deepak Suneja and Adv. Mahesh Kumar contended that Authority for Advance Ruling, ought to have passed rulings in respect of all three queries raised by the applicant. They had furnished a synopsis that contained relevant legal provisions supporting their stand.
It was brought to the notice that the primary idea was rectification of advance ruling as given under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, and to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, provided a request was made within a period of 6 months from the date order.
Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here
When a question raised by the applicant isn’t answered in the Advance Ruling or the Appellate Order erroneously or due to oversight without assigning any reasons thereof, it will then be considered a case fit for rectification of error under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017.
And if the AAR had refrained from answering after citing reasons, it becomes a reasoned Ruling. It can’t be then considered as a mistake or error. Therefore the applicant ought to have filed an appeal within the prescribed time frame in accordance with Section 100 of CGST Act.
The quasi judicial body comprising Smt. D. Jayapriya and Smt.A. Valli observed that no error was apparent on the face of advance ruling as alleged by the applicant. As the mistake pointed out by the applicant was not obvious or self evidenced, it wasn'tṣ be held to be a mistake apparent from the record.
Hence the applicant’s application for rectification of advance ruling was rejected.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
