Case Law Details
In re AR Raju Beverages Private Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh)
Whether the beverages or drinks sold in the name and style of ARTOS orange or ARTOS Clear Lemon fall under fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink or not (2202 9920), which is liable to be taxed at 6% CGST and 6% SGST?
Since the applicant withdrew the application, we find no reason to go into the merits of the case and it is dismissed as withdrawn and therefore no Ruling is given.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
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. AR Raju Beverages Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as applicant), registered under the AP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Brief Facts of the case:
The applicant, Mjs. AR Raju Beverages Private Limited (GSTIN 37AATCA8616L1ZX) is engaged in the manufacturing of fruit juice based beverages and marketing the same in the name and style of ‘ARTOS’ orange and clear lemon.
The applicant had filed an application in form GST ARA-01 dated 27.01.2021 by paying required amount of fee for seeking Advance Ruling on the following issues, as mentioned below.
4. Questions raised before the authority:
The applicant seeks advance ruling on the following:
a. Whether the beverages or drinks sold in the name and style of ARTOS orange or ARTOS Clear Lemon fall under fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink or not (2202 9920), which is liable to be taxed at 6% CGST and 6% SGST?
b. If not, under what classification the above goods fall and what is the applicable rate of tax to be charged on the outward supplies?
5. Record of Personal Hearing:
The authorised representative of the applicant, Sri KVJLN Sastry, appeared for Personal Hearing on 06.07.2021 and had reiterated the submissions already made in the application.
6. Discussion and Findings:
We have gone through the submission made by the applicant regarding the classification of the goods in question and the applicable rate of tax. But, before going into the merits of the case, we consider the plea made by the applicant before this authority in his letter dated: 20.07.2021 requesting for withdrawal of the Advance Ruling. The request of the applicant is considered favourably and this authority passed the following order with a direction that fees already paid shall not be refunded and the same stands as forfeited.
ORDER
Since the applicant withdrew the application, we find no reason to go into the merits of the case and it is dismissed as withdrawn and therefore no Ruling is given.
