In re Bhaskar’s Mane Holige and Khuruk Thindi (GST AAR Karnataka)
Summary: The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the application of Bhaskar’s Mane Holige and Khuruk Thindi under the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, holding that the issue raised had already been examined and decided in proceedings under Section 73. The applicant, a Bengaluru proprietary concern specialising in the preparation of live holige, stated that 50% of its customers consumed food on-site and the remaining 50% took their orders away. It described its business as providing restaurant services under SAC 996331.
The applicant sought clarification on input tax credit for business purchases attracting GST at 5%, 12% and 18%, including purchases made while operating as a restaurant. It also questioned whether converting its business description from restaurant services to trading would permit such credit, and whether declaring and filing GST as a restaurant service was valid. Further questions concerned credit of GST paid on business-premises rent against output tax at 12% and 18%, and credit on kitchen equipment, packing materials, fans, electrical items, stationery and goods vehicles.
Although the applicant declared in Column 17 of Form ARA-01 that the questions were neither pending nor already decided in any proceedings in its case, the Authority found that proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 had already been initiated for July 2022 to July 2023. The enforcement authority had issued Form DRC-01A intimating the tax liability. The applicant accepted the applicable tax rate and discharged the liability through Form DRC-03, concluding those proceedings. No new facts or submissions were made at the personal hearing held on 21 August 2025. The Authority consequently found the declaration factually incorrect and rejected the application as not maintainable. The order did not determine the individual ITC or business-classification questions on their merits.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING KARNATAKA
ORDER UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 &
UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE KGST ACT, 2017
M/s. Bhaskar’s Mane Holige and Khuruk Thindi, Shri. Kundapura Ramanna Bhaskar, Prop. (herein after referred to as Applicant), # 74/5, D V G Road, Near Upahara Darshini, Nettakallappa Circle, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560004, having GSTIN 29AMSPB3796J1ZB, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 97 of KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of KGST Rules, 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of Rs.5,000/- each under the CGST Act, KGST Act.
2. The Applicant submits that they are proprietary concern business specializing in the preparation of live holige, 50% of the customers eat on-site, while the other 50% take their orders to go; they are providing Restaurant Services covered under SAC 996331.
3. In view of the above, the applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions:
a) We are eligible to claim input tax credits of 5%, 12% and 18% for our business purchase of goods.
b) We have declared our business as a restaurant. We are eligible to claim input tax credits of 12% and 18% on our purchase of goods.
c) We are doing business Convert from Restaurant Services to trading activity and claiming all the Input tax of 5%, 12% and 18% as per GST Act is valid?
d) We are declaring the Restaurant service and filing of GST on Restaurant service as per GST Act is valid?
e) We are Business Place Building Rent and GST Tax paid to Building owner, same GST Tax we will claiming Input Tax is Eligible for against Output Tax @ 12% and 18%?
f) We are Purchasing of Kitchen Equipment’s Packing Materials, Fans, Electrical Items, Stationery and Goods Vehicles Input tax Claiming is eligible for GST Tax for our business?
4.1 The Applicant, under Column 17 of Form ARA-01, has declared that the questions raised in the application are neither:
(a) Pending in any proceedings in the Applicant’s case under any provisions of the Act; nor
(b) Already decided in any proceedings in the Applicant’s case under any provisions of the Act.
4.2 However, it is observed that proceedings had already been initiated against the Applicant under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for the period July 2022 to July 2023, and Form DRC-01A was issued by Office of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), South Zone intimating the tax liability.
4.3 Pursuant thereto, the Applicant accepted the applicable rate of tax and discharged the liability through Form DRC-03, thereby concluding the said proceedings.
4.4 Further, the Applicant was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on 21.08.2025, no new facts or submissions were made during the course of the said personal hearing before this Authority.
4.5 In view of the above, it is evident that the issue raised in the present application has already been examined in the proceedings under Section 73 and has attained finality. Accordingly, the declaration furnished by the Applicant is found to be factually incorrect.
4.6 In terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the Authority shall not admit an application where the question raised is already pending or has been decided in any proceedings in the case of the Applicant.
5. In the present case, since the issue has already been examined and decided in proceedings under Section 73, the present application is not maintainable in terms of the aforesaid proviso.
6. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following:
RULING
The application is rejected, in terms of Proviso (i) to Section 98(2) of the CGST/KGST Act 2017, as the issue is decided.
