Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2020 (9) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 353 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of application for advance ruling - first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 - initiation of investigation was done prior to filing of the instant application - Classification of goods - rate of tax - flavoured Milk - taxable at the rate of 5% under Schedule-IV of GST Act or not - HELD THAT:- The first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 does not specify as to with whom the issue pertaining to the question raised has to be pending, but merely specifies that it has to be pending or decided under the provisions of this Act. Hence the argument of the applicant that the issue must be pending before the jurisdictional officer is not tenable under the law. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore East Commissionerate, Bangalore have reported vide their letter dated 18.08.2020 that the Directorate of GST Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit have initiated the investigation against the applicant, with regard to mis-classification of “flavoured milk”, under Incident Report No.35/2019-20, which is under progress. DGSTI has recorded the statements of the authorised representatives of the applicant and the applicant has also paid ₹ 2.97 Lacs towards pre-deposit. Further it is an admitted fact that the initiation of investigation was done prior to filing of the instant application, by issuing summons dated 18.02.2019, 15.03.2019 & 14.08.2019 - Thus all the required three conditions have been satisfied in the instant case and hence the application is liable to be treated as inadmissible. The application is rejected as “inadmissible”, in terms of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
|