Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2022 (6) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (6) TMI 249 - AAR - GST


Issues:
1. Admission of application under Section 97 of GST Act for advance ruling.
2. Interpretation of the term "Government Entity" and tax rate applicability.
3. Impact of pending proceedings on the admissibility of the application.

Analysis:
1. The application filed by M/s. Srico Projects Private Limited under Section 97 of the GST Act for advance ruling was admitted by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana. The applicant paid the requisite fee and declared that the questions raised were not decided by any other authority under the GST Act, leading to the admission of the application.

2. The primary questions raised by the applicant were related to the classification of CGEWHO as a "Government Entity" and the applicable tax rate for contracts with them. The applicant sought clarification on whether the tax rate of 12% (CGST@6% + SGST@6%) was applicable to contracts with CGEWHO in accordance with specific notifications.

3. During the personal hearing, the authorized representatives of the applicant highlighted the need for clarification predating a specific notification and mentioned a notice received from the DGGI regarding tax rates. However, the Authority noted that the DGGI had initiated an inquiry and issued a notice to the applicant, falling under the first proviso of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, which could lead to the rejection of the application.

4. The Authority emphasized that if the question raised in the application is pending or decided in any proceedings concerning the applicant, the application may be refused admission. Referring to the recent amendment expanding the meaning of "proceedings" under Chapter-XIV of the CGST Act, the Authority highlighted the consistent interpretation principle in legal jurisprudence.

5. In light of the ongoing proceedings initiated by the DGGI, Hyderabad, and the notice issued to the applicant before the AAR hearing, the application was rejected due to the pendency of proceedings under Chapter-XIV of the CGST Act regarding the same question raised by the applicant. The timing of the application filing vis-a-vis the investigation did not grant immunity from inquiry, leading to the rejection of the application by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates