Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAAR GST - 2020 (3) TMI AAAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 73 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKAMaintainability of application for advance ruling - Classification of goods - Flavoured Milk - contention is that the application filed by the respondent KCMPFL should not have been admitted by the Authority in terms of the proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act since an investigation was already pending against them on the same issue of classification of “Flavoured Milk” by the Directorate General of GST intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit(DGGI) - challenge to AAR decision. HELD THAT:- Sec. 98(2) provides that the application shall not be admitted where the question raised is already pending under any of the provisions of this Act. It is clear from the record submitted by the Appellant Department that proceedings were pending against KCMPFL before the DGGI and the issue taken up by the DGGI in the proceedings related to the classification of the Flavoured Milk - whether under Chapter heading 2202 99 30 or under 0402 99 90 - the respondent KCMPFL made an application for advance ruling on 20th March 2019 all the while being aware of the investigation being conducted against them by the DGGI, Bangalore. The respondent KCMPFL chose to keep this fact away from the Authority for Advance Ruling at the time of filing the application. The application for advance ruling could not have been made in this case as it is hit by the provisions of Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act in as much as an investigation was already initiated against them by DGGI on the very same issue that was raised before the Authority for Advance Ruling. The order of the lower Authority is void ab initio as it was vitiated by the provisions of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act - Appeal allowed.
|