Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

National University of Study & Research in Law, Ranchi

Before
THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
AT NEW DELHI
___________________________________________________________________________

A.A.R. No. ________/2017

(Under Section 96 r/w 97(2)(a) of CGST Act, 2017)

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF

XRF Ltd. & YRF Ltd. .................Petitioners

Versus

The Department through Comm. Of Central Tax.........................................Respondent

___________________________________________________________________________
- Memorandum on Behalf of the Respondent-
-- Drawn and filed by the Counsel of Respondent --
___________________________________________________________________________

Counsel on behalf of Respondent:-


Rakesh Kumar Sahoo
Semester IX, Section B
Roll No. 342
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________________________
Index of Authorities ..... 03
A. List of Cases...........................................................................................................03
B. Books & Commentaries.................03
C. Acts & Statutes...................................................................03
D. Internet Sites.......03
List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................... 04
Statement of Jurisdiction....... 05
Statement of Facts......... 06
Questions Presented... 07
Summary of Pleadings........... 08
Pleadings 09
Prayer......... 19

Page 2 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________________

A. List of Cases
Decibells Electronics P. Ltd. vs CCE (1996) 88 ELT 181 (CEGAT)

Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corpn. vs. CCE ...(1996) 81 ELT 585 (CEGAT)

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Comm. Of Central Excise, Delhi-III,

...(2010) (8) TMI 49 CESTAT, New Delhi

Siddhartha Tubes vs. CCE ...2006 (193) ELT 6 (SC)

Super Synotex (India) Ltd. 2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC)

UOI vs. JG Glass Industries .......(1998) 2 SCC 32

Volvo India vs. CCE ..(182) ELT 471 (CESTAT)

B. Books & Commentaries


Datey V.S., INDIRECT TAXES Law and Practice, 31st Edn. , Taxmann Publications
(P.) Ltd.
Sodhani, Vineet; Indirect Tax Laws-Central Excise Laws (Module 1); Taxmann
Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (Nov 2013).

C. Acts & Statutes


Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
Central Excise Act, 1944

D. Internet Sites
http://thelawdictionary.org.
http://www.manupatrafast.in.
http://www.scconline.co.in.
http://www.westlawindia.com

Page 3 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________

& - And
AIR - All India Reporter

Anr. - Another

Corpn. - Corporation

Edn. - Edition

ELT - Excise Law Tribunal

Govt. - Government

Honble - Honourable

i.e. - that is

Ltd. - Limited

Ors. - Others

Rep - Representation

SC. - Supreme Court

SCC - Supreme Court Cases

Sec. - Section

v. - Versus

Vol. - Volume

Page 4 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
___________________________________________________________________________

THE RESPONDENTS MOST HUMBLY SUBMIT THIS MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE


TO THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT INVOKING ITS
JUSRISDICTION UNDER SECTION 961 r/w SECTION 97(2)(a)2 OF THE CGST ACT,
2017. THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY DENIES TO SUBMIT TO THIS JURISDICTION.

1
96. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, for the purposes of this Act, the Authority for advance ruling
constituted under the provisions of a State Goods and Services Tax Act or Union Territory Goods and Services
Tax Act shall be deemed to be the Authority for advance ruling in respect of that State or Union territory.
2
97 (2) The question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of,
(c) in determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both
Page 5 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF FACTS
___________________________________________________________________________
Parties:-
Petitioner XRF Ltd. and YRF Ltd.
Respondent Comm. Of Central Tax

Background of the case:-


The XRF Ltd and YRF Ltd, two leading MNC of Gurgaon since 1980, were joint
manufacturers of various types of motor vehicles chargeable to duty on ad valorem
basis.
The motor vehicles were sold by the manufactures to different dealers almost till date.
Department observed that while selling the vehicles to the customers, the dealers added
their own margin known as the dealers margin to the price at which the vehicles were
made available to them by the manufacturers.
Facts leading to the case:-
This dealers margin contained provision for rendering pre-delivery inspection and
three after sale services.
Hence, the Department contended that the cost of post-delivery inspection and after sale
services were to form part of the assessable value of the automobile while discharging
the duty liability.
Present Matter:-
Aggrieved by order of the department, the assesse has approached this forum under the
GST Act.

Page 6 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
___________________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sales service


recovered by dealers from buyers of the cars would be included in the
assessable value of cars?

___________________________________________________________________________

2. How the value can be assessed?

___________________________________________________________________________

3. Affirm the right forum for adjudicating the issue.

___________________________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
___________________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sales service


recovered by dealers from buyers of the cars would be included in the assessable
value of cars?

It is contented that while selling the vehicles to the customers after they are made
available to the dealers, the dealers add their own margin i.e. the dealer's margin to the
price at which the vehicles were made available to them by the assessee. Taking into
consideration the concept of "transaction value" under Section 4 of the Central Excise
Act which provides that whatever is recovered from the buyer by reason of or in
connection with sale, whether payable at time of sale or any other time, directly
or indirectly, to the manufacturer or paid on behalf of this manufacturer to the
dealer including the charges for servicing and warranty, was to be included in the
transaction value. It is therefore submitted that, PDI and the after-sales services
provided by the dealer on behalf of the assessee, and the cost towards the same formed
part of the assessable value.

2. How the value can be assessed?


The valuation provisions are enshrined in section 15 of the CGST Act, which provides
for valuation on the basis on transaction value of the goods or services. Similar
provision existed in the Central Excise Act, 1944 under section 4 of the Act, which
provided not only for valuation based transaction value but other methods as well.

3. Affirm the right forum for adjudicating the issue.


The appropriate authority for adjudication of the present matter will be the
commissioner of central tax as per the provisions of GST Act, since he is the proper
officer who acts as the adjudicating authority in cases of first instance.

Page 8 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

PLEADINGS
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Whether the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sales service
recovered by dealers from buyers of the cars would be included in the assessable
value of cars?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that, the charges towards pre-delivery
inspection (PDI) and after-sales service (ASS) recovered by dealers from buyers of the cars
is included in the assessable value of cars.

Assessable Value (AV) defined: - is the Value on which duty is payable as a percentage.
Generally, by value it is understood the price as mentioned in Bill or Invoice. However,
it is not possible to fully rely on such price.

1. Inclusions under the definition of transaction value


1.1.It is contented that while selling the vehicles to the customers after they are made
available to the dealers, the dealers add their own margin i.e. the dealer's margin to the
price at which the vehicles were made available to them by the assessee. Taking into
consideration the concept of "transaction value" under Section 4 of the Central Excise
Act which provides that whatever is recovered from the buyer by reason of or in
connection with sale, whether payable at time of sale or any other time, directly
or indirectly, to the manufacturer or paid on behalf of this manufacturer to the
dealer including the charges for servicing and warranty, was to be included in the
transaction value. It is therefore submitted that, PDI and the after-sales services
provided by the dealer on behalf of the assessee, and the cost towards the same formed
part of the assessable value.

1.2.The reliance placed is on the definition of transaction value contained in Section 4(3)(d)
of the Central Excise Act. The relevant words of that sub-section are "and includes in
addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to
or on behalf of the assessee, by reasons of or in connection with the sale...including,
any amount charged for or to make provision for...servicing warranty". The reference
is to "amount liable to be paid to the assessee or on behalf of the assessee". The words
in the definition do not relate to amounts payable to or on behalf of any party other than
the manufacturer assessee.

Page 9 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

1.3.Further, the words by reason of or in connection with sale is of importance. In the


case of Volvo India vs. CCE3, it was held that free service is part of sale consideration.
It is available to every purchaser and its value remains included in sale price. Thus, in
the instant matter also, the PDI & ASS provided as free service by the dealer forms
part of the sale consideration and therefore, includible in the assessable value.

1.4.There are a plethora of cases in this regard, Decibells Electronics P. Ltd. vs CCE4, it
was held that consultancy charges in relation to pre-installation planning, lay-out design
and warranty maintenance in respect of computers are includible in assessable value.
These charges are includible even if the manufacturer has paid these charges to his
suppliers.

2. Scope of Levy under Transaction Value


2.1.Measure of levying is expanded and its composition is broad based to bring all that a
buyer is liable to pay or incur by reason of sale or in connection on therewith.
Apparently, the transaction value does not merely include the amount paid to the
assessee towards price but also includes any amount a buyer is liable to pay by reason
of or in connection with the sale of the goods, including any amount paid on behalf of
assessee to the dealer or the person selling the vehicles.
2.2.The transaction value, therefore, is not confined to the amount actually paid and is not
restricted to flow back of consideration or part thereof to the assessee directly but even
for discharge of sales obligations both in present and future. It would include even the
amount paid by the buyer to the dealer or the persons selling vehicles in pursuance of
the contract between the dealer or the seller and the assessee in relation to or connection
with the sale of the vehicles and such payment may be in the course of sale or even after
sale. Thus all deferred and future considerations add to assessable value.5

3. Theory of Flow Back of Consideration


3.1.In the case of Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corpn. vs. CCE6, it was held that if there is
no allegation of flow-back of money from the buyer to the assessee, if price is the sole
consideration and if dealing are at an arms length, the assessable value will be decided

3
(182) ELT 471 (CESTAT)
4
(1996) 88 ELT 181 (CEGAT)
5
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Comm. Of Central Excise, Delhi-III, (2010) (8) TMI 49 CESTAT, New Delhi
6
(1996) 81 ELT 585 (CEGAT)
Page 10 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

according to the selling price, irrespective of the fact that whether the assessee is
making profit or loss in manufacture and sale of the goods. However, in the present
case, there is a case of flow-back of consideration.
3.2.It is the contention of the department-respondent that the theory of "flow back of
consideration or part thereof is not confined to direct monetary benefit to the assessee
in connection with the sale of vehicles but rejuvenated to include consideration
integrally connected with post sale obligations also and indirect benefit received in the
course of or on account of sale as well as subsequent to the sale pursuant to any service
rendered by the person who sells the vehicles under the contract with the manufacturer
relating to the sale of the vehicles in view of meaning of transaction value as
incorporated in to the provisions of Section 4(3)(d) of the Act. Sales in such type of
contracts is conceived by both parties to be complete if post sales obligation are
dischargeable by settled terms known to each other making performance of contract
certain.

3.3.The above view was given effect in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Comm.
Of Central Excise, Delhi-III7, where the court upon perusal of definition of the term
"transaction Value" does not disclose the elements to be included in the assessable value
would depend upon direct flow back of the consideration to the assessee. However, the
court held that there need not be direct flow back of consideration to assessee. Even
indirect benefit is includible as assessable value.

4. Concept of Valuation is different from the concept of Manufacture


4.1.Goods are to be assessed at the time of removal from factory. Thus, the state in which
they are removed is highly relevant for valuation. In the case of UOI vs. JG Glass
Industries8, it was held that though printing on the bottle is not process of manufacture,
if the bottles are cleared from factory after such printing, its cost will have to be added
for purpose of valuation. Value of printed bottles including printing charges will be the
assessable value.

7
(2010) (8) TMI 49 CESTAT, New Delhi
8
(1998) AIR SCW 573; (1998) 2 SCC 32
Page 11 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

4.2.In another case of Siddhartha Tubes vs. CCE9, it was held that if galvanising is done
before removal of goods from the factory, its value is includible, as concept of valuation
is different from concept of manufacture.
4.3.Similarly, in the present matter it can be inferred that though PDI and ASS are not part
of the manufacturing process, but it adds to the intrinsic value of the product/goods,
thus making it commercially usable. Therefore, the cost of PDI and ASS shall be
included in the assessable value of the goods.

2. The Valuation will be assessed as per the transaction value of the Goods.

Since the Goods & Service Tax Act has come into force earlier this year, all disputes relating
to valuation are decided in accordance with Section 15 of the CGST Act. Under this section,
valuation of all goods or services or both have to be assessed according to the transaction value.
Thus transaction value system becomes one of the system for determining the value of the
goods manufactured for the purpose of levying duty. Under this system, the transaction value
of the goods manufactured/supplied is considered as the assessable value for the purpose of
levy of duty.

Valuation may be determined in accordance with provisions of law under:-

1. Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

15. (1) The value of a supply of goods or services or both shall be the transaction
value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or
services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related
and the price is the sole consideration for the supply.
Section 15(1) provides that the value of supply of goods and services shall be the
transaction value. The provision can be divided into:-
a. Price actually paid or payable for the supply of goods and services
b. Recipient of supply is not a related person
c. Price is the sole consideration for supply

9
2006 (193) ELT 6 (SC)
Page 12 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

Price actually paid or payable

Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for determination of value where the
duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value. It is known
that the phrase actually paid or payable has been used in the definition of transaction
value given in section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act. According to the case of Super
Synotex (India) Ltd.10, the amount actually paid or payable shall be determined based
on the contract entered into between the supplier and recipient of goods or services. The
contract will indicate the amount payable by the recipient for the supply of goods or
services.

Recipient of supply is not a related person

Excise is payable only at the manufacturing stage and once the goods enter the trade,
no excise is payable. Thus, if they are related, this provision is likely to be mis-used. If
goods are sold solely through a related person, price at which such related person
makes onward sale to an independent buyer will be the assessable value.

Price should be the sole consideration

Section 15(1) further provides that price shall be the sole consideration for supply, if
any additional consideration, whether in monetary or non-monetary terms, is received,
the value of such consideration shall be added to the consideration to arrive at the
transaction value. Interpretative notes provide that payment made directly or indirectly
by the recipient to the supplier will constitute the price actually paid or payable.

As one can easily see from the recorded facts that in the present case all the three
conditions are satisfied, namely (a) price is actually paid or is payable when the
manufacturer supplies to the dealer. However, the amount payable and paid can change
and therefore, the price actually paid will be ascertained as per the contract between the
manufacturer and the dealer. Further, the manufacturer supplies goods to dealers across
the country and at prices which are not same for every dealer and therefore the only

10
2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC)
Page 13 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

conclusion remains is that price is the sole consideration for the transaction and
therefore, parties cannot be related to each other.

2. Central Excise Act, 1944


Under the Central Excise Act, valuation takes place in different categories, but since
duty in the present matter is charged on Ad Valorem basis, the only relevant category
is: - Valuation based on Transaction Value. According to this mechanism, the
assessable value is arrived at on the basis of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and
duty is payable on the basis of such value.

Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944:-


4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise.
(1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods
with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value
shall
(a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time
and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of goods are not related
and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value;
(b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the
value determined in such manner as may be prescribed.11
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any excisable
goods for which a tariff value has been fixed under sub-section (2) of section 3.

The provisions of valuation as provided under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944
provides for methods of valuation other than transaction value as well. It provides that
if the ingredients of section 4(1)(a) are satisfied only then valuation can be done as per
the transaction value, otherwise the valuation can assessed in the manner as prescribed
for instance, based on MRP, based on specified duty or tariff rules.

11
[Explanation.For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the price-cum-duty of the excisable goods
sold by the assessee shall be the price actually paid to him for the goods sold and the money value of the additional
consideration, if any, flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of
such goods, and such price-cum-duty, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid, shall be deemed
to include the duty payable on such goods.]
Page 14 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

3. Affirm the right forum for adjudicating the issue.

It is humbly submitted before the bench that under the GST regime the Commissioner
of Central Tax, Gurugram, is the right forum for adjudicating the issue. In the old tax
regime, the right forum for adjudicating the issue would have been the Commissioner
of Central Excise, Gurugram. This contention is based on the following submissions.

I. UNDER THE PREVIOUS TAX REGIME (CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944)


a. Section 2 (a)12 of CEA, 1944 defines an adjudicating authority as any authority
authorized to decide under this act. Now the instant case relates to exclusion of
the dealers margin from the assessable value, thereby resulting in short
payment of duty by the manufacturers (Petitioner), and thus;
b. As per Section 11A13 of CEA, 1944 in case of short payment of duty it is for
the Central Excise Officer to determine the amount of excise duty due from the
chargeable person. Thus, the Central Excise officer is authorized to decide
upon short-payment by a chargeable person and is thus an adjudicating
authority as under Section 2 (a) of the CEA, 1944.
c. Finally, as per Section 2 (b)14 of CEA, 1944, Central Excise Officer is defined,
among other designations, as the designation of the Commissioner of Central
Excise.

12
Ss. 2 (a). Adjudicating authority means any authority competent to pass any order or decision under this
Act, but does not include the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of
Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963), Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunal;
13
Ss. 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.
(1) When any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or [erroneously
refunded, whether or not such non-levy or non-payment, short levy or short payment or erroneous refund, as the
case may be, was on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation
of excisable goods under any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder], a Central Excise Officer
may, within [one year] from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not
been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been
made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice:
(2) The[Central Excise Officer] shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom
notice is served under sub-section (1), determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person (not being
in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined.
14
(b) Central Excise Officer means the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central
Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, [Joint
Commissioner of Central Excise] [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise] or any other officer of the Central Excise Department, or any person (including an officer of the State
Government) invested by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of
Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963) with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under this Act.

Page 15 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

II. UNDER THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX REGIME


a. Section 2 (4)15 of CGST, 2017 defines adjudicating authority as any authority,
authorized to pass any order or decision under this Act. Now, the instant case
pertains to exclusion of the dealers margin from the assessable value. The
department contends that the excluded dealers margin should be included in
the assessable value as assessed under Ss. 59 of the Act.
b. Section 59 of CGST, 2017 provides that Every registered person shall self-
assess the taxes payable under this Act and furnish a return for each tax period
as specified under section 39 and;
c. Section 6116of CGST, 2017 provides that the aforementioned return can be
scrutinized by the proper officer to verify the correctness and inform the
chargeable person about any discrepancies and seek his explanation thereto,
and;
d. In case no satisfactory explanation is furnished by such chargeable person then
the proper officer may proceed to determine the tax and other dues under
Section 73 or Section 74 (which relate to determination of tax not paid or short
paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized for
any reason other than fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts
or for reasons of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts.)
e. Section 2 (91) of the CGST, 2017 reads, proper officer in relation to any
function to be performed under this Act, means the Commissioner or the officer
of the central tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the
Board. And;
f. Section 2 (24) of CGST, 2017 reads, Commissioner means the
Commissioner of central tax and includes the Principal Commissioner of

15
Ss. 2 (4) adjudicating authority means any authority, appointed or authorised to pass any order or
decision under this Act, but does not include the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the Revisional Authority,
the Authority for Advance Ruling, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, the Appellate Authority and the
Appellate Tribunal
16
Ss. 61 (1) The proper officer may scrutinize the return and related particulars furnished by the registered
person to verify the correctness of the return and inform him of the discrepancies noticed, if any, in such manner
as may be prescribed and seek his explanation thereto.
(3) In case no satisfactory explanation is furnished within a period of thirty days of being informed by the
proper officer or such further period as may be permitted by him or where the registered person, after accepting
the discrepancies, fails to take the corrective measure in his return for the month in which the discrepancy is
accepted, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action including those under section 65 or section 66 or
section 67, or proceed to determine the tax and other dues under section 73 or section 74.

Page 16 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

central tax appointed under section 3 and the Commissioner of integrated tax
appointed under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;

Hence, in light of the above submissions it is contended that since the proper officer,
i.e. the Commissioner of Central Tax, is empowered under Section 61 to scrutinize the
self-assessed returns of the assesse and also to finally determine the tax due on account
of short-payment, such as in the instant matter, wherein the exclusion of dealers margin
form the assessable value resulted in short payment of duty by the Petitioner the
Commissioner of Central tax is thus the right forum for adjudicating the issue.

III. REFUTING ADVANCE RULING


a. Section 95 of CGST defines advance ruling as, advance ruling means a
decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant
on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub-
section (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both
being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
b. In the case at hand, it is neither being undertaken nor is it proposed to undertake
the supply of goods and services by the Petitioners. The activity of supply is
already being done by the petitioner since 1980. Undertaken is defined by the
Macmillan Dictionary as to promise to do something.17
c. Hence, under Section 95, two situations are envisaged either the applicant is
in the process of promising to supply or he proposes to make such a promise to
supply. But, in the case at hand the Petitioner is already engaged in i.e. has
already undertaken to supply the goods and services.
d. Obtaining an advance ruling provides certainty and transparency to a taxpayer
with respect to an issue which may potentially cause a dispute with the tax
administration.18
e. However, in the present case the Petitioner has been involved in the activity of
supplying motor vehicles since 1980 taxed on ad valorem (Transaction Value)
and does not require an advance ruling for deciding the valuation of the same
goods.

17
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/undertake, Last Accessed on 21.11.2017
18
Taxmanns, GST A Practical Approach, 3rd Edition, Taxmann Publication Pvt. Ltd, pp. 400
Page 17 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

f. Read as a whole the questions for which an application for advance ruling can
be filed, mentioned under Section 97 (2)19, reflects the kind of premonitions a
person might have with respect to taxation matters, before beginning with a
taxable activity.

19
(2) The question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of,
(a) classification of any goods or services or both;
(b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
(c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;
(g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to
or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term.
Page 18 of 19
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

PRAYER
___________________________________________________________________________

Wherefore in the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly requested that the Honble Court may graciously be pleased:

I. To declare that the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sales service
recovered by dealers from buyers of the cars would be included in the assessable
value of cars.

And pass any order/relief in favour of the Respondent.


All of which is most respectfully submitted.

Sd/-
Counsel for the Respondent

Page 19 of 19