9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven an opportunity of being heard. 2. Under Section 103(1) of the Act, this Advance ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only (a) on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub- section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling; (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. 3. Under Section 103 (2) of the Act, this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the said advance ruling have changed. 4. Under Section 104(1) of the Act, where the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruling pronounced by it under sub-section (1) of Section 101 has been obtained by the appellant by fraud or suppression of material facts misrepresentation of facts, it 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 appellant as if such advance ruling has never been made. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act are in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Already pending in any proceedings in the applicant's case under any of the provisions of the Act * Already decided in any proceedings in the applicant's case under any of the provisions of the Act The applicant contested that non-disclosure of enquiry/summons u/s 70 of CGST Act, as 'proceedings' in the advance ruling application does not amount to suppression and that they are eligible for a ruling in this case. 2.4. The AAR, Tamil Nadu, vide its order 17/ARA/2023 dated 19/06/2023 rejected their application under first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that a proceeding is pending under the CGST Act, 2017. 2.5. The Original Authority had vide Order No: 17/AAR/2023 dated: 19-06-2023 discussed as follows: "8.8 The applicant contests that non-disclosure of enquiry / summons under Section 70 of CGST Act as 'proceedings' in the advance ruling application of the applicant does not amount to suppression and they are eligible for a ruling by AAR. The applicant is interpreting the term 'proceedings' in isolation with reference to Section 73 and 74 of the Act without considering the first proviso to section 98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice has been issued or order is passed which is not there in the present case and the investigation initiated by state tax is not within the ambit of the term proceedings. To this extent, appellant relied upon judgement of Delhi High Court in case of CIT-I Vs Authority of Advance Ruling 120201 I 19 Taxmann. Com 80 (Delhi HC) and the case of Sage Publication Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) reported at 120161 387 ITR 437 (Delhi), which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in (20171246 Taxman 57 (SC). b. The term 'Proceedings' only includes any proceedings that may result in a decision i.e. show cause notice or order and cannot include mere inquiry or investigation initiated by investigation agencies as Show Cause Notice is the point of commencement of any proceeding as per Master Circular No. 1053/0212017-CX dated 10.03.2017 issued by CBIC. * They rely on the following judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court which clearly defines the Term "Proceedings" and distinguishes it from enquiry/summons: * The Supreme Court in Liberty Union Mills v. Union of India held that the term "investigation" means the process of collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order under Appeal and pass such other orders, as deemed fit. 4. Further to this, the Appellant vide their letter dated 27.09.2023, filed additional grounds of Appeal, wherein they stated that: * AAR in their ruling vide para 6 stated as follows: "DGGI Office has also quoted High Court of Andhra Pradesh order dated 23.11.2022 in WP No.5571 of 2021, which states that issuance of summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017, is the commencement of investigation/proceedings as per CGST Act, 2017." * The said additional material submitted to AAR by DGGI was not brought to the notice of the Appellant and thereby principal of natural justice was not followed in as much as they have not been extended an opportunity to comment on the submissions of DGGI w.r.t Andhra Pradesh High Court order dated 23.11.2022. * Tamil Nadu State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling vide Order No.AAAR/07/2019(AR) dated 21.10.2019 in the case of A M Abdul Rahman Rowther& Co., on the same facts had opined that justice will be met by recommending the case to the lower authority to extend an opportunity to the Appellant and then decide the case as per the provision of law. They requested to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court Order dated 23.11.2022. Further, we find that the appellant had enclosed a copy of the Order in Appeal No.AAAR/07/2019(AR) dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther& Co., on the same facts, and opined that justice will be met by recommending the case to the lower authority to extend an opportunity to the appellant and then decide the case as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, the issue before us for determination is whether the rejection of application filed by the appellant for advance ruling, by the Lower Authority is as per the provisions of law and Principles of Natural Justice. 6.5 On perusal of the original order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority vide Advance Ruling No. 17/ARA/2023 dated 19.06.2023, we find that in para 5 of the said Order, the contents of the letter dated 28.07.2022 of DGGI have been discussed. Further, we observe that in para 8.9 of the said order, the Advance Ruling Authority draws the conclusion that the advance ruling application is liable to be rejected based on the fact that statements has been recorded an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
