We have examined the issues raised in the application and the submissions of the applicant as well. In the context of the remarks submitted by the jurisdictional officer, we examine the admissibility of the application without going into the merits of the case.
In the context of the remarks submitted by the Revenue and upon the observation of the chronology of events, it is evident that the applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling on an issue which has already been pending with the proper officer.
It bars this authority to take up or admit an application which has been already pending or decided in any proceedings in case of the applicant under any of the provisions of the Act under proviso to section 98(2), which reads as under,
“(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorised representative and the concerned officer or his authorised representative, by order, either admit or reject the application:
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 the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act:”
Hence, the applicant’s plea for admission of his application for advance ruling in terms of proviso of sub section (2) of section 98 of CGST Act, 2017 is rejected.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
(Under sub-section (2) of Section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and sub-section (2) of Section 98 of Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
1. At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the APGST Act.
2. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and AP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to CGST Act and APGST Act respectively) by M/s. Vasudeva DaII Products Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as applicant), registered under the AP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Brief Facts of the case:
55 | Heading 9986 | Carrying out an intermediate production process as job work in relation to cultivation of plants and rearing of all life forms of animals, except the rearing of horses, for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products or agricultural produce. | NIL | NIL |
In applicant’s view milling of whole red gram into dall is an intermediate production process as job work, covered by the above entry. Hence, no GST would be payable on milling charges if any.
4. Questions raised before the authority:
1. Whether the advance supply of own red gram dall to the AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Vijayawada and receipt of whole red gram at a later date from the Corporation merits classification as transaction of ‘barter’?
2. Whether the packing charges of Rs. 4.50 received by the applicant for packing 1 Kg. of red gram dall supplied to the said Corporation are taxable?
Remarks of the Jurisdictional Officer:
5. Virtual Hearing:
The proceedings of Hearing were conducted through video conference on 05th February, 2021, for which the authorized representative, Dr. Ramaraju Srinivasa Rao, Advocate and tax consultant attended and reiterated the submissions already made.
6. Discussion and Findings:
We have examined the issues raised in the application and the submissions of the applicant as well. In the context of the remarks submitted by the jurisdictional officer, we examine the admissibility of the application without going into the merits of the case.
In the context of the remarks submitted by the Revenue and upon the observation of the chronology of events, it is evident that the applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling on an issue which has already been pending with the proper officer.
It bars this authority to take up or admit an application which has been already pending or decided in any proceedings in case of the applicant under any of the provisions of the Act under proviso to section 98(2), which reads as under,
“(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorised representative and the concerned officer or his authorised representative, by order, either admit or reject the application:
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 the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act:”
Hence, the applicant’s plea for admission of his application for advance ruling in terms of proviso of sub section (2) of section 98 of CGST Act, 2017 is rejected.
Proceedings
In view of the foregoing, the application is not admitted.