2021 (4) TMI 936 - AAAR - GST

Seeking clarification from the court in view of the first proviso to section 98(2) of the central goods and service tax act 2017 to enable the sixth respondent to WP namely AAR to pass orders in that application - Whether pendency of the Writ petition 24412 dt 19/08/2019 shall not preclude the AAR from deciding the application made by the Petitioner namely the PHFMS? HELD THAT - The appeal was filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that in spite of the facts mentioned in detail on the merits of the case in the application before AAR along with the documentary evidences submitted before the AAR, the AAR have not given their ruling citing the section 98(2) of the CGST Act, as a constraint in giving their rule on the issue raised by the applicant - The applicant has filed this appeal with Appellate authority for Advance Ruling with prayer to direct the AAR to consider their application dt 15/08/2019 and pass appropriate orders as per the law and facts put before them or alternatively modify the order passed by AAR by giving clarification on issues raised by the applicant whether GST is applicable on above said services to be provided by the applicant to DME or whether the said services are exempted under notification no. 12/2017 among other grounds of appeal that may be adduced at the time of hearing. The Order of the Advance Ruling Authority was right, since at the material time there was a petition filed by the appellant, pending before the Hon'ble High Court in this matter. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the AAR.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 102, 103, and 104 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamilnadu Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Binding nature of advance rulings under Section 103.
3. Effect of fraud or suppression of material facts on advance rulings under Section 104.
4. Appeal against a ruling by the Tamilnadu State Authority for Advance Ruling.
5. Applicability of GST on services provided to the Directorate of Medical Education.
6. Consideration of High Court orders in the context of advance rulings.
7. Authority of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling to direct reconsideration of applications.

Analysis:
1. The judgment discusses the provisions of Sections 102, 103, and 104 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamilnadu Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. It emphasizes the authority of the Appellate authority to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record within a specified timeframe, ensuring an opportunity for the appellant to be heard before any rectification affecting tax liability. The judgment also highlights the binding nature of advance rulings on the applicant, concerned officers, or jurisdictional officers unless there are changes in law, facts, or circumstances supporting the ruling.

2. Regarding the effect of fraud or suppression of material facts on advance rulings, the judgment specifies that if the Appellate Authority finds an advance ruling obtained through fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation, it can declare the ruling void, subjecting the appellant to the provisions of the Act as if the ruling never existed.

3. The case involves an appeal against a ruling by the Tamilnadu State Authority for Advance Ruling, where the appellant sought clarification on the applicability of GST on services provided to the Directorate of Medical Education. The appellant contested the AAR's decision based on the High Court's order, emphasizing the right to seek a ruling on the merits of the case.

4. The judgment addresses the consideration of High Court orders in the context of advance rulings, highlighting that the appellant's petition before the High Court did not preclude the AAR from deciding the application. The appellant's appeal to the Appellate Authority sought a direction to reconsider the application and provide clarification on the GST applicability on the services in question.

5. Ultimately, the Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority, citing the pending petition before the High Court as a reason not to interfere with the original order. However, the appellant was granted the freedom to file a fresh application before the AAR in the absence of pending proceedings at the High Court, effectively disposing of the appeal accordingly.