9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 271 - AAR - GSTRectification of Mistake or not - correctness and legality in the case of IN RE M/S. SRI. V. MOHANDAS PAI, PROP. M/S DHEERAJ ENTERPRISES, 2020 (12) TMI 903 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA where it was held that issue raised in the instant application and the issue pending under the proceedings are one and same i.e. classification of the services provided by the applicant. Thus first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 is squarely applicable to the instant case, as all the conditions therein are fulfilled - HELD THAT - There is no error/ mistake apparent on record in the aforesaid ruling as alleged by the applicant. In fact the applicant is challenging the correctness and legality of the said ruling, instead of bringing out any error apparent on record in the said ruling. Thus it is very clear that the authority has considered all the submissions and issued proper ruling. Hence there is no error / mistake apparent on the face of the record in the given judgement. There is no error / apparent mistake on the face of the record in the given judgement - the instant application is not maintainable and is liable for rejection in terms of Section 98 (2) of the CGST/KGST Act 2017 and hence the same is dismissed as inadmissible.
Issues: Application for rectification of mistake challenging the correctness and legality of a ruling.
Analysis: The case involves an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) filed by an applicant challenging the correctness and legality of a ruling issued by the Authority for Advance Rulings, Karnataka. The applicant, represented by an Advocate & Authorized Representative, argued that the initiation of proceedings should be through a Show Cause Notice and not merely an intimation of probable tax payable under DRC-01 A. The applicant contended that the ruling needs rectification as DRC-01A is considered only an intimation, not the initiation of proceedings. During the personal hearing, the applicant reiterated these submissions. Upon examination of the submissions and records, the Authority found that there was no error or mistake apparent on record in the ruling as alleged by the applicant. It was noted that the applicant was challenging the correctness and legality of the ruling without pointing out any error on record. The Authority concluded that all submissions were considered, and the ruling was issued correctly. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, the Authority emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be glaring, obvious, or self-evidenced, and not a debatable point requiring elaborate argument. As no such apparent mistake was found, the Authority determined that the application for rectification was not maintainable and hence dismissed it as inadmissible under Section 98(2) of the CGST/KGST Act 2017. In summary, the Authority for Advance Rulings, Karnataka, dismissed the application for rectification of mistake challenging the correctness and legality of a ruling, as no error or mistake apparent on record was found. The applicant's argument regarding the initiation of proceedings through a Show Cause Notice was not accepted, and the Authority held that the ruling was issued properly after considering all submissions. The decision was based on the principle that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not a matter of debate, as established by legal precedent.
|
