Case Law Details
In re Tirumala Milk Products Pvt Ltd. (GST AAAR Karnataka)
in the instant appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the grounds on which the lower Authority has refused to admit the application for advance ruling which is that, the question on which the ruling was sought is a matter that is being investigated by the Directorate of GST Intelligence and hence the application cannot be admitted in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. The Appellant has assailed this reasoning and argued that it is only when the same question is being investigated by the ‘concerned officer’ that the provisions of the proviso to Section 98(2) will apply; that investigations conducted by any other agency will not attract the said proviso. The Appellant has gone into great length in analyzing the intention of the legislature in framing the provisions of Section 98 and has put forth the view that it is only proceedings which are pending before the ‘concerned/jurisdictional officer’ which qualify for rejection in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2). We have already reproduced the provisions of Section 98 of the CGST Act and we find that such an interpretation is certainly not implied in the framing of the said Section. The first proviso to Section 98(2) makes an application ineligible for admission if the Authority finds that the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in `any proceedings’ in the case of the applicant under any provisions of this Act. Commencement of investigation in terms of Section 67 of the CGST Act, can be said to be the start of a proceeding to safeguard the government revenue. The investigation can be initiated either by the concerned/jurisdictional officer or by agencies who are empowered under the provisions of the CGST Act to issue summons and investigate. Therefore, the use of the phrase “any proceedings” in the 1st proviso to Section 98(2) encompasses within its fold proceedings pending either before the concerned/jurisdictional officer or before any investigative agency such as DGSTI. We also find from the records that the statement recorded by the DGSTI pursuant to the summons issued, deals mainly with the classification and rate of tax of the product “Flavoured Milk”. Therefore, we agree with the decision taken by the lower Authority that the application for advance ruling is inadmissible in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the appeal filed against the non-admittance of the application for advance ruling is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017.Since the appeal itself is not maintainable, the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal does not arise.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING KARNATAKA
At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST, Act 2017 and SGST, Act 2017 are in parimateria 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 KGST Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
