Case Law Details
In re Asstt. Commr. of SGST (D-819) Vs. Arihant Enterprises (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
Sec. 98(2) provides that the application shall not be admitted where the question raised is already pending under any of the provisions of this act. The term ‘any of the provisions of this act’ includes investigations proceeding under section 67. It is clear from the record submitted by the DGGI that proceedings was pending against KOTI ( Kamat Ourtimes Ice-cream Ltd), and the issue taken up in the proceedings related to the classification of the activities ‘ice-cream sold from the natural outlets‘ – whether the supplier of goods would be charged at the rate of 18 % under HSN 2105 by availing ITC or whether the activity should be classified as supply of service under SAC -996331 at the rate of 5 % without ITC.
There was a deliberate intention on the part of KOTI as well as its applicant-respondent to obtain a decision clandestinely without revealing the issue.
On behalf of Arihant Enterprises, it was argued that the appeal can only be filed by an aggrieved person. The Asst Commr., State Tax, Pune who is the jurisdictional officer of the applicant-respondent had made the submission before the authority for advance ruling that the supply of ice cream from the retail outlets of the applicant-respondent is a supply of goods and the ARA accepted the submission of the jurisdictional officer. They have further submitted that the present appeal has been filed on the direction of the DGGI and they cannot compel the jurisdictional officer to file appeal.
We do not agree with the above. As per Section 104, power have been given to the Appellate Authority to declare an order u/s.98(4) to be void ab-initio in case it is obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
