Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (1) TMI 1595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilar provisions under the MPGST Act and vice-versa. 2. The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter also referred to as "the CGST Act and MPGST Act"] by Anil Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the "appellant") against the order of Advance Ruling No. 19/2019/AAR/R-28/36 dated 18.10.2019 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE- 1. The Appellant is engaged in processing of milk and milk products including flavored milk. As per Appellant, flavored milk is a sweetened dairy drink made with milk sugar permissible colors and artificial or natural flavours. 2. The appellant has sought advance ruling on appropriate cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mandate and without any determination of facts and circumstances in proper perspective, beseeches indulgence in this appeal petition on the following enumerated grounds. 1. That, the appellant submits, the order of rejection of the application has been premised on the inference of the Ld. AAR of the application being non complaint of first proviso to section 98(2) of the act. The said proviso provides- "Provided that the authority 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 provisions of the act." The appellant further submits, admittedly the Ld. AAR came to know about a purported 'proceeding' having been initi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the application was manifestedly a fact finding initiative and not a proceeding as has been intended in the said section 98(2). The appellant therefore submits that having no proceeding initiated by the DGGI, the said premise for rejection of the application under section 98(2) is flawed and untenable. ii. That, apparently [1] the application for advance ruling made by the appellant U/s 97 of the Act, was judicial proceeding. Also, it is a fact that the DGGI had not been a party impleaded in the said proceeding. Therefore, the letter dtd.31/07/20I9 of the DGGI is beyond jurisdiction, consequently; is redundant and non-est in this context. Hence the order rejecting the application, relying on such letter is bad in law and thus unsustainable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence could not be faulted with. 3. That, the appellant further submits that the appellant's contention get augmented from the fact that no sooner than the rejection order of the impugned application of the appellant was passed, the said DGGI has promptly asked the appellant, vide its letter bearing No. 5638 dtd. 06/08/2019, citing the impugned order dtd. 18/10/2019 of the Ld.AAR. to pay the differential tax liability on account of mis-declaration of the impugned commodity with interest and 15% penalty. The appellant submits that the infirmity in the said direction of the DGGI is that; (a) It has asked for the payment of the purported differential tax with interest and penalty. without even concluding its so called enquiry and issuing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in case of an applicant under any of provisions of this Act.' 5. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the instant application is not maintainable in as much as it is hit by the provisions contained in first proviso to section 98(2) of the Act. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the application deserves to be rejected as not admissible in terms of first proviso to section 98(2) of the Act. ORDER We uphold the order 19/2019/A.A.R/R-28/36 dated 18.10.2019 passed by Advance Ruling Authority and appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Anil Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. stands dismissed on all counts.
Ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates