Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal1 September 2026

Rakesh Kumar Singh, In re

For revenue

ORDER NO.09/WBAAR/2026-27

The ruling in brief

Where applicant, a trader of dried and cured tobacco leaves, seeks advance ruling on classification and rate despite previous proceedings concluding that goods are taxable as unmanufactured tobacco at 28 percent, admission of application was barred by first proviso to Section 98(2) since identical questions has already been decided and therefore application is to be rejected as not admissible

Provisions considered

CGST S.98

Section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

AAAR West Bengal15 Jul 2026

For revenue

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re

Where appellant completed construction contracts and received final payments prior to GST regime, but later sought advance ruling regarding taxability of compensation received post-arbitration, since advance ruling provisions applies only to ongoing or proposed supplies, and not to completed transactions, application was not maintainable and ruling could not be sustained GST: Where WBAAR admitted and ruled on an application regarding classification and taxability, on appeal, AAAR could examine maintainability even though admission occurred under Section 98(2), as appellate jurisdiction under Section 101(1) allows consideration of legal questions including maintainability, despite no departmental appeal or specific challenge from appellant. GST: Where appellant completed works pre-GST, received arbitral award in 2023 with payments in 2024, invocation of Section 142(2)(a) for treating awarded sums as upward price revision was incorrect since arbitral award alone does not constitute upward revision, and whether components are consideration for supplies, revision, damages or other heads requires case-specific fact scrutiny outside advance ruling scope. GST: Where amounts awarded for services that were potentially taxable under erstwhile law but not actually taxed are considered in transitional provisions; mere non-payment of service tax under old regime does not by itself mandate levy of GST, as section 142(11)(a) intends to prevent double taxation based on leviability under earlier law, not actual payment

Karnataka High Court7 Jul 2026

For revenue

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling

Third-party petitioner lacked locus to challenge an AAR/AAAR ruling under Article 226, as such rulings bind only applicant therein and its jurisdictional authority; absent contractual GST classification or rate terms in respect of contract entered between petitioner and said applicant, no civil consequence arose, and writ jurisdiction could not rewrite contract

Related rulings

AAAR West Bengal15 Jul 2026

For revenue

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re

Karnataka High Court7 Jul 2026

For revenue

Rakesh Kumar Singh, In re

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Rakesh Kumar Singh, In re

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., In re

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling

Read the full analysis