The Rajasthan High Court addressed the issue regarding the 90-day timeline for disposing of GST advance ruling appeals under Section 101(2), determining it to be directory rather than mandatory. The case involved M/s Giri Transport Company, which sought an advance ruling on whether free-of-cost diesel supplied by a service recipient should be included in the taxable value of Goods Transport Agency services under GST. Initially, the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling sided with the petitioner, excluding the diesel from the taxable value. However, both CGST and SGST authorities later filed appeals against this ruling.
The petitioner challenged these appeals, citing delays, procedural defects, and contradictory departmental positions. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed these objections and proceeded to hear the appeals on their merits. The petitioner then approached the High Court, questioning the maintainability of the appeals.
Read More: Supreme Court of India: Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports and Casinos Played for stakes constitute taxable actionable claims; GST leviable on full stake amount under Pre-Amendment Regime [Order attached]
The Court ruled that the 90-day period under Section 101(2) is not mandatory, as the GST law does not specify consequences for failing to decide within this timeframe. The Court emphasized that the statutory right of appeal under Section 100 should not be hindered by technicalities. It also clarified that both CGST and SGST officers are independent authorities with the right to appeal, and prior departmental support for the taxpayer does not preclude subsequent appeals. The Court affirmed that there is no estoppel against the State in taxation matters, allowing the department to revise its stance through appellate processes.
Order Date - 20 May 2026
Parties: M/s Giri Transport Company Vs Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling Rajasthan & Others
Facts -
- M/s Giri Transport Company, a Goods Transport Agency, sought an advance ruling on whether free-of-cost diesel supplied by the service recipient should be included in the taxable value of GTA services under GST.
- During the advance ruling proceedings, the jurisdictional SGST officer supported the petitioner’s stand and the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling ruled on 16.06.2022 that such diesel value was not includable in taxable value.
- Later, both CGST and SGST authorities filed appeals against the advance ruling. The petitioner objected by arguing that the appeals were delayed, manually filed, beyond jurisdiction, and contradictory to the department’s earlier stand.
- The Appellate Authority rejected all preliminary objections on 01.07.2024 and directed that the appeals be heard on merits, after which the petitioner again approached the High Court challenging the maintainability of those appeals.
Issue -
- Whether the departmental appeals against the GST advance ruling were maintainable despite alleged delay, procedural defects, and contradictory stands taken by tax authorities?
Order -
- The Court observed that the 90-day period prescribed under Section 101(2) for deciding appeals is only directory and not mandatory. Since the GST law does not provide any consequence for failure to decide within 90 days, the appellate proceedings cannot automatically lapse merely because of delay.
- The Court held that the right of appeal granted under Section 100 cannot be defeated through hyper-technical interpretation. Interpreting the word “shall” as mandatory would unjustly extinguish statutory appellate rights and frustrate the object of adjudication on merits.
- The Court further observed that both CGST and SGST officers are distinct authorities under the GST framework and each independently possesses the right to file appeals against advance rulings. Participation or non-participation in earlier proceedings does not take away such statutory right.
- The Court also ruled that there is no estoppel against the State in taxation matters. Even if a subordinate officer had initially supported the taxpayer before the Advance Ruling Authority, the department was legally entitled to correct its position through appellate proceedings after reconsideration by higher authorities.
