Case Law Details
In re Saisanket Enterprises (GST AAAR Madhya Pradesh)
We find that the first proviso to section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 is very clear, that the authority shall not admit the application 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. We find that Advance Ruling Authority has rightly rejected the appellant’s application as per the first proviso to section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017 on the grounds that the question raised by the appellant before the Authority is pending with the DGGSTI and proceeding against the appellant is underway by the DGGSTI, Regional Unit, Indore.
Section 100(1) mandates that only a ruling pronounced under subsection (4) of section 98 of CGST, Act, 2017 can be appealed before the Appellate Authority for advance, Ruling. We find that the Advance Ruling Authority in its Order 20/2020 has rejected le application of the appellant under section 98(2) of CGST, Act, 2017, and it cannot loc. said to be any advance ruling pronounced under sub-section (4) of section 98 of CGST, Act, 2017, therefore the appellants appeal fails on this count also.
In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the instant appeal is not maintainable in as much as it is covered in the first proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST, Act, 2017 and not maintainable under section 100(1) of CGST, Act, 2017 as well. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal deserves to be rejected as it is not admissible in terms of first proviso to section 98(2) and section 100(1) of CGST, Act, 2017.
Also Read AAR: Question raised in application already pending or decided- AAR rejects application
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
