Tamil Nadu AAR Holds Queries on E-Way Bill Procedures Not Admissible for Advance Ruling Under Section 97(2) of CGST Act

Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has delivered a significant order clarifying the scope of matters that may be addressed through the advance ruling mechanism under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The ruling arose from an application by M/s. Grayeye IT Systems Pvt. Ltd., an OEM and supplier of IT hardware, seeking clarification on the generation and applicability of e-way bills in various interstate and intrastate supply scenarios, including the ‘Bill to Ship to’ model and the validity period for e-way bill generation.

The applicant described three scenarios involving direct supplies from suppliers in one state to customers in another, without the goods entering Tamil Nadu, as well as issues regarding the correct tax to be charged and the timing for e-way bill generation. During the personal hearing, the applicant’s representatives reiterated their queries, seeking guidance on the correct procedure for e-way bill generation when invoices are raised after installation and goods are moved on delivery challans.

Upon review, the AAR noted that the applicant’s queries were centered exclusively on the procedures and validity of e-way bill generation. The Authority examined Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which enumerates the specific categories of questions eligible for advance ruling, such as classification of goods or services, applicability of notifications, determination of time and value of supply, admissibility of input tax credit, liability to pay tax, registration requirements, and whether a particular activity constitutes a supply.

The AAR found that the applicant’s questions regarding e-way bill procedures did not fall within any of the categories listed in Section 97(2). The Authority emphasized that its mandate is limited to providing advance rulings on the issues expressly mentioned in the statute, and that procedural matters relating to e-way bills are governed by Chapter XVI of the CGST Rules, 2017, and not by the advance ruling mechanism.

Accordingly, the AAR concluded that the application was not liable for admission and rejected it under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. The Authority clarified that questions relating to e-way bill procedures are outside the purview of advance ruling and directed that the application be rejected, providing detailed reasons for the decision.

This ruling reinforces the principle that the advance ruling mechanism under GST is confined to the specific legal issues enumerated in Section 97(2) and does not extend to procedural aspects such as e-way bill generation, which are addressed by the relevant rules and notifications.