Case Law Details
In re Anik Milk Products Private Limited (GST AAAR Madhya Pradesh)
We find that the question before us essentially pertains to classification of the goods under the Act. We, therefore observe that the issue before us is squarely covered under section 97(2)(a). However, we also take a note of the letter of the Joint Director DGGI, where in it has been informed that the enquiry on this issue had been initiated by DGGI prior to filing of instant application.
At the time of personal hearing, the authorized representative of the appellant also confirmed that they were in receipt of summons issued by DGGI in this matter and the application before AAR had been preferred subsequent to initiation of proceedings at DGGI Bhopal. Although it was incumbent upon the appellant to disclose this fact in the application. In fact, the appellant have intentionally avoided disclosing this fact in the application just to avoid the provisions of section 98(2).
First proviso to section 98(2) stipulates, ‘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 case of an applicant under any of provisions of this Act.’
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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
