Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re M/s Faiveley Transport Rail Technologies India Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu)
Appeal Number : Order No. 38/ARA/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re M/s Faiveley Transport Rail Technologies India Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu)

DGGSTI has taken up investigations on the classifications adopted by the applicant on their supplies to Indian Railways and classified under CTH 8607. The subject goods are supplied to `Indian Railways’ and the applicant classify the same under CTH 8607. The application is filed on 20.01.2020 while the proceedings on the ‘Classification of the goods supplied to Indian Railways’ and the ‘rate adopted for payment of GST’ were initiated through summon dated 10.10.2018. Also from the list of parts given to the DGGSTI by the applicant, it is seen that details relating to ‘Pantograph and Parts’ is also furnished. The applicant claims that the DGGSTI did not contend the classification of ‘Pantograph’ and therefore the said goods were never a part of the investigation. The first proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act, states that where the question raised is pending or decided in any proceedings under this Act, the same is not eligible for admission before this authority. It is clear that classification and rate adopted in respect of ‘Pantograph’ irrespective of the claim that their classification was acceded/contended by the investigating authority has been called for as a part of the investigation proceedings under Summon issued under Section 70 of the Act which establishes that the question raised before us is a part of the proceedings of DGGSTI and therefore squarely covered under proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act.

The applicant has relied upon the rulings pronounced by GST Advance Ruling Appellate Authority/ Advance Ruling Authority of different states wherein the said authorities have rejected the applications when the Investigations pertained to specific goods. The applicant has contended that in their case the investigation was generic and the subject goods were not part of the proceedings and therefore the application is to be admitted. As brought out in para supra, the investigation initiated by DGGSTI in the case of applicant is on the classification and rate of GST adopted by the applicant on the supplies to Indian Railways, classifying under CTH 8607. It is without doubt that the applicant has been classifying the subject goods under CTH 8607 and the supplies are made to ‘Indian Railways’ and therefore we are unable to agree the contention that the investigation is ‘generic’, while we find the investigation is on the ‘class of products’ classified under CTH 8607 and supplied to ‘Indian Railways’.

In View of the above, The application is not admitted under first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017 for the reasons mentioned in para 9 above.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, TAMIL NADU

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031