Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2024 (2) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 896 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARATScope of Advance Ruling - Validity of Ruling dated 20/01/2021 - Investigation proceedings were ongoing - Appropriate classification & rate of GST applicable - supply of plastic toys under CGST & SGST - claim of ITC in relation to CGST-IGST separately in debit notes issued by the supplier in the current financial year i.e. 2020-21, towards the transactions for the period 2018-19 - whether a person who is chargeable with tax and who opts to pay the differential duty along with interest for whatever reasons, can the applicant post such payment claim that no proceedings under the Act were initiated/pending against him? - HELD THAT:- The proceedings were initiated against the applicant were never disclosed to the authority. In-fact, in the personal hearing dated 8.5.2023, the applicant on being asked informed that the said fact was not informed to the authority. In view thereof, the aforementioned GAAR order dated 20.1.2021 is void in terms of section 104 of the CGST Act 2017 on non-disclosure of fact of pendency of proceedings. Our view is also substantiated by the below mentioned findings. Proviso to section 98(2), ibid, clearly states that the AAR shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act; that the rejection of the application will be only after providing a reasonable opportunity and that the reasons for such rejection shall be specified in the order. Pending proceedings is not defined under the CGST Act, 2017. However, the issue is no longer res Integra having already been decided by various fora - The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M/S MASTER MINDS VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING (GST) , COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [2022 (12) TMI 1029 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has held the proper officer under this Act shall have the power to summon any person either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the proceedings conducted by the investigating authority under the provisions of this Act shall be construed as judicial proceedings as per the CGST/APGST Act. Section 104, ibid, spells out the circumstances which would render the advance ruling to be void. The situations stipulated arc when a ruling under 98(4) has been obtained by the applicant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, section 104, ibid, states that the authority may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the applicant as if such Advance Ruling had never been made. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has already held that when investigation has already commenced prior to the filing of application, the Advance Ruling Authority shall not admit the application as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98. In this case, the facts reveal that the applicant was aware of the fact DGGI Pune was conducting an investigation and in agreement where to the applicant had without protest paid the differential duty. Post this, the applicant cannot feign ignorance more so since they had deposited a huge sum as differential duty, which is mentioned in the Incident Report issued by DGGI. The ruling by GAAR vide its Order No. GUJ/GAAR/R/10/2021 dated 20.01.2021 [2021 (4) TMI 558 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT] was obtained by the applicant by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of facts and is therefore clearly hit by section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017 - the said order is termed as void in terms of section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017.
|